Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Options
1…8384868889…108

Comments

  • Options
    #2552
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    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 the the certain entertainer is annoying.

    I think they’re both scumbags, if that consistency makes you feel better.


  • Options
    #2553
    dont bother
    Closed Accounts Posts: 542 ✭✭✭dont bother


    Faugheen wrote: »
    No no Francie, you have this wrong, again.

    You cannot definitively say what the jury thought happened that night. All you can say is that they couldn't convict beyond reasonable doubt.

    How many times have we had this discussion and you keep making **** up to suit your own narrative.

    So how come you can "definitively say" that the "jury didnt come to the conclusion" - they could have, were you in the room?

    they were found not guilty, no amount of saying what the jury thought, or otherwise will change the fact that they are not guilty of rape.
    they are not guilty.
    the jury decided that they were not guilty, there was no way to prove that they were guilty, indicating that they are NOT GUILTY.
    whats so hard to grasp - it's as simple as that.
    you were not there when it happened, nor in the courtroom, so you are only proving you have an agenda by trying to twist things to YOUR narrative.

    NOT GUILTY


  • Options
    #2554
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Machina wrote: »
    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.
    Well lookee here, a poster who really does need to be mansplained. Look at yourself, venting your spleen over an explanation. What other things am I doing wrong with my life pray tell? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #2555
    Machina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭Machina


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    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.

    I was listening to the Filmspotting podcast yesterday and they were having a discussion about Se7en. They referred to all of the actors by name but only referred to 'John Doe' when discussing Kevin Spacey, John Doe of course being that character's name in the film.

    There's clearly massive questions hanging over Spacey and he's admitted to seeking help for his 'issues', but I just thought it was interesting to see how he, as an actor, was being written out of history by the presenters of this particular show.


  • Options
    #2556
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    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.
    No argument from me. I think he's massively disappointed anyone who's ever been involved with his rearing. That this was going to follow him in his rugby career was obvious. A smarter individual might have reflected on other life options post-trial.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2557
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,429 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    dont bother wrote: »
    So how come you can "definitively say" that the "jury didnt come to the conclusion" - they could have, were you in the room?

    they were found not guilty, no amount of saying what the jury thought, or otherwise will change the fact that they are not guilty of rape.
    they are not guilty.
    the jury decided that they were not guilty, there was no way to prove that they were guilty, indicating that they are NOT GUILTY.
    whats so hard to grasp - it's as simple as that.
    you were not there when it happened, nor in the courtroom, so you are only proving you have an agenda by trying to twist things to YOUR narrative.

    NOT GUILTY

    Me and francie actually agree on something!

    I need to have a lie down :D


  • Options
    #2558
    upandcumming
    Registered Users Posts: 2,715 ✭✭✭upandcumming


    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.

    What behaviour was that?
    One message in a group chat? Let a girl leave his house CRYING?


  • Options
    #2559
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,064 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    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.

    How do you 'know'?
    If you seen him do it, then you are a witness. To be used in 'evidence against' him.

    If you concluded before the case that he is guilty, then you either have evidence to back it up or you have assumed guilt.


  • Options
    #2560
    Machina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭Machina


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Well lookee here, a poster who really does need to be mansplained. Look at yourself, venting your spleen over an explanation. What other things am I doing wrong with my life pray tell? :rolleyes:

    Well you could start by expressing yourself like an adult.


  • Options
    #2561
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Machina wrote: »
    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.

    If it’s been all over the media why don’t you post a link to a story about it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2562
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,064 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Me and francie actually agree on something!

    I need to have a lie down :D

    No, you just have to prepare for the possibility that you may be showing signs of approaching normality. ;)


  • Options
    #2563
    Machina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭Machina


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    If it’s been all over the media why don’t you post a link to a story about it?

    And why on earth would I want to do that given the very nature of my post?

    If you have trouble believing that there are such things as miscarriages of justice, then that's on you.


  • Options
    #2564
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,136 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Deleted User wrote: »
    what does not being convicted mean, legally?


    jesus christ

    Being found not guilty just means they weren't found guilty. That's all.
    suicide_circus wrote: »
    so every person brought to trial and found not guilty still has a permanent shadow hanging over their good name forevermore?

    Kinda. Juries are not tasked with finding someone innocent. they can't do that. They are tasked with finding that there is sufficient evidence to find someone guilty. If there isn't, then the accused are let go.

    A good example of this is the OJ case. The jury felt there wasn't enough evidence. That doesn't mean he didn't do it. It just means they couldn't determine that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Now there are some people who are completely exonerated in a trial because of the evidence. take for example the guildford four. There's no suggestion that they did what they were accused of. However (and I'm sure there are people who know more than me) there are options, depending on jurisdictions, to have convictions set aside or expunged.
    However for someone who wasn't convicted, I don't believe they have that option.


  • Options
    #2565
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Machina wrote: »
    And why on earth would I want to do that given the very nature of my post?

    If you have trouble believing that there are such things as miscarriages of justice, then that's on you.

    You can’t because you are making it up. If such a thing happened in Ireland we’d have all heard about it anyhow.


  • Options
    #2566
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,136 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    salmocab wrote: »
    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.

    Deleting the messages is what got me. They deliberately deleted evidence.


  • Options
    #2567
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Grayson wrote: »
    Being found not guilty just means they weren't found guilty. That's all.



    Kinda. Juries are not tasked with finding someone innocent. they can't do that. They are tasked with finding that there is sufficient evidence to find someone guilty. If there isn't, then the accused are let go.

    A good example of this is the OJ case. The jury felt there wasn't enough evidence. That doesn't mean he didn't do it. It just means they couldn't determine that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Now there are some people who are completely exonerated in a trial because of the evidence. take for example the guildford four. There's no suggestion that they did what they were accused of. However (and I'm sure there are people who know more than me) there are options, depending on jurisdictions, to have convictions set aside or expunged.
    However for someone who wasn't convicted, I don't believe they have that option.



    you are speaking as if there wasnt a trial

    there was

    verdict not guilty

    youre trying to church up "i still think they did it"

    but all you are saying is "i still think they did it"

    which, yknow, fair play to you on having that opinion


  • Options
    #2568
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,296 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Grayson wrote: »
    Deleting the messages is what got me. They deliberately deleted evidence.

    Yeah there was a suggestion that deleting messages and that they all met up before doing to the police was sinister but if they all met up and came out with completely different stories then they are either idiots or told what they all believed to be the truth.
    Honestly I don’t think they are guilty of anything more than being knobs but if everyone I thought was a knob was hounded out of town by social media users I’d be living in a city of about 40 people.


  • Options
    #2569
    Machina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭Machina


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    You can’t because you are making it up. If such a thing happened in Ireland we’d have all heard about it anyhow.

    I'm not going to give you his name or spend my morning thrawlimg through internet archives looking for tabloid articles from circa 97-99, assuming they even exist in digital format. You say I'm lying. I say I'm not. It wouldn't be the first time that happened on a forum.


  • Options
    #2570
    take everything
    Registered Users Posts: 9,800 ✭✭✭take everything


    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.

    I don't really want to get into this but in that analogy would you also include a woman who testified that what she saw wasn't a robbery.
    And maybe ask why a woman would say that.


  • Options
    #2571
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    Grayson wrote: »
    Kinda. Juries are not tasked with finding someone innocent. they can't do that. They are tasked with finding that there is sufficient evidence to find someone guilty. If there isn't, then the accused are let go.

    So a person is not innocent until proven guilty?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2572
    crossman47
    Registered Users Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭crossman47


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    You can’t because you are making it up. If such a thing happened in Ireland we’d have all heard about it anyhow.

    We did hear about such a case in the last few years. I don't recall the detail but think it was in the west of Ireland.


  • Options
    #2573
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    salmocab wrote: »
    if everyone I thought was a knob was hounded out of town by social media users I’d be living in a city of about 40 people.

    jesus sign me up to this tbf


  • Options
    #2574
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Machina wrote: »
    I'm not going to give you his name or spend my morning thrawlimg through internet archives looking for tabloid articles from circa 97-99, assuming they even exist in digital format. You say I'm lying. I say I'm not. It wouldn't be the first time that happened on a forum.

    Ok, so it’s a major miscarriage of justice in which a man was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, which was only opened up again after his mother campaigned in tabloids and “Joe Duffy” type broadcasts, but despite this, it’s not something we all heard about already, you can’t give out his name, and it’s not possible to easily find articles about it from the era online, because only tabloids reported on it.

    Dude, it’s obviously made up.


  • Options
    #2575
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,136 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Deleted User wrote: »
    you are speaking as if there wasnt a trial

    there was

    verdict not guilty

    youre trying to church up "i still think they did it"

    but all you are saying is "i still think they did it"

    which, yknow, fair play to you on having that opinion

    I was explaining exactly what a verdict of "not guilty" meant.

    It's a fact that it means what it means. It's not a narrative. It's not a story. It's what it means. Not guilty does not mean innocent. It also doesn't mean guilty. It just means that the jury didn't feel there was enough evidence to convict.


  • Options
    #2576
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    crossman47 wrote: »
    We did hear about such a case in the last few years. I don't recall the detail but think it was in the west of Ireland.

    Oh well, it can’t be this one, cause this happened way back circa “97-99”, that notorious media blackhole for which no records exist.


  • Options
    #2577
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    you are speaking as if there wasnt a trial

    there was

    verdict not guilty

    youre trying to church up "i still think they did it"

    but all you are saying is "i still think they did it"

    which, yknow, fair play to you on having that opinion

    Sometimes guilty people get away with it.

    I won’t try and dress it up: I think they did it.

    I think there’s a good chance they didn’t actually realise what they were doing: that having rough sex with girls was a regular occurrence and that with a few drinks on them it didn’t even occur to them to check if she was enjoying it or even consented.

    All just my opinion obviously.


  • Options
    #2578
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    Sometimes guilty people get away with it.

    I won’t try and dress it up: I think they did it.

    I think there’s a good chance they didn’t actually realise what they were doing: that having rough sex with girls was a regular occurrence and that with a few drinks on them it didn’t even occur to them to check if she was enjoying it or even consented.

    All just my opinion obviously.

    im fully with that, no problem. we'll never know.

    the difference being that grayson, despite protest to the contrary since, is spinning a "not guilty" as "guilty but couldnt prove it"

    thats nonsense.


  • Options
    #2579
    Machina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭Machina


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    Oh well, it can’t be this one, cause this happened way back circa “97-99”, that notorious media blackhole for which no records exist.

    Show me how to search through the Sun or Star archives from the late 90's and I'll PM you the article.


  • Options
    #2580
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    im fully with that, no problem. we'll never know.

    the difference being that grayson, despite protest to the contrary since, is spinning a "not guilty" as "guilty but couldnt prove it"

    thats nonsense.

    There definitely have been jurors in famous cases (the MJ trial was one of them I believe) who said “My opinion is that he did it but the prosecution didn’t prove it”.

    In other words, he was likely guilty but the standard of proof was high and it wasn’t met.

    That’s why you hear defense lawyers place so much emphasis on creating tiny holes in the prosecution’s argument: because to get their client off all they have to prove is “reasonable doubt”.

    As such any small inconsistency, any minor mistake in how the evidence was handled could be enough (with the right legal team) to convince a jury to let a man they think is guilty go free based on reasonable doubt.

    Those lads didn’t spend half a million pounds sterling on legal fees for nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2581
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,064 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    Sometimes guilty people get away with it.

    I won’t try and dress it up: I think they did it.

    I think there’s a good chance they didn’t actually realise what they were doing: that having rough sex with girls was a regular occurrence and that with a few drinks on them it didn’t even occur to them to check if she was enjoying it or even consented.

    All just my opinion obviously.

    Should your 'opinion' or anyone else's be allowed to discriminate against them?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement