[Nicky91]

not only with this case but usually it's the girl who is called irresponsible and unaware of the risks what social media brings


sorry to say this but it's these sort of sick men who are to blame, and perhaps many girls/boys want social media for relationships or sharing holiday pics, selfie's


these sick men just take advantage of social media stalking girls, pretending to be boys their ages sometimes


it is very easy to call the girl irresponsible while not all people on social media are evil



and back on topic, here it is Obvious the players are to blame for what they did

#IBelieveHer

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

The thing about it is, that because of the whatsapp messages, those men while sober say they this is what they do, like they seek that kind of activity out, not during the day or when drink isn't involved, waiting to find a girl who they can take advantage of basically

...yeah that’s what I mean I guess..(...sorry my thoughts are a bit fuzzed this morning so that post was probably not well explained..)...but ..(..as it’s assumed not rape with this in the eyes of the law...)...society still often views it with some things I’ve seen as focus on the female’s vulnerability...but it could be said that their behaviour left them vulnerable as well...of ‘consensual’ being assured...their charges and trial were surely because of their own actions in what they ‘sought out’ that evening...and that’s why responsibility of ‘vulnerable’ should not be placed on the female...but it so often is...in fact mostly it is by society judgement...they sound pretty grim tbh, the rugby players...but their actions up to and through it all is what placed the ‘vulnerability’...not her actions...in my thoughts anyway...

[Vicky.]

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...aled-1.3458269

Legal arguments^ Some of that is pretty unbelievable tbh, but this..

Other evidence which could not be reported during the trial included the presence of Mr Olding’s semen on the crotch of the woman’s jeans. Instead, the jury was simply told the semen was found on the jeans, without being informed specifically where.

The evidence was kept from the jury as it was ruled to be overly prejudicial. Mr Olding had originally been charged with vaginal rape of the woman but this count was effectively dropped by the prosecution in 2017, leaving a sole count of oral rape against the accused.

Judge Smyth ruled that allowing evidence of the presence of his semen on the crotch of the jeans would be overly prejudicial give the absence of a vaginal rape charge.

Is just ridiculous that it was discounted..

[Marsh.]

How is the facts about where his semen was found prejudicial?

[Vicky.]

Exactly. This is just vile tbh.

The other blood on paddys sheets too..leads me to believe he may have had 'consensual' sex with another victim who he tore in her vagina. As he would have just answered the question otherwise. And, is it a first for a judge to airbrush the evidence so that its not prejudicial?!

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I understand the awareness of ‘personal vulnerabilities’ in situations...but sadly in society that’s often placed placed and totally focused on the female..and rape trials especially are extremely difficult for ‘victims’ as we know...which is why many are not reported...or reluctant to report...but as a non guilty verdict was reached in this case...we as a society would assume the ‘victims’ to also be the rugby players...yet society still doesn’t say...’why did they put themselves in that position’...why is no focus seemingly placed on that aspect...the disrespect they appear to have for females aside...they became ‘vulnerable’, surely in their intentions for that evening ..to leave themselves so open in the whole vein of events...to being accused of rape and non-consensual sexual acts...?...no focus of ‘blame or vulnerability’..ever appears to be there though in how society views these things...?...

Exactly. Even if a woman wins a rape case there's still always talk of what she could have done to better protect herself from being raped. But there's never any talk of what men can do to protect themselves from being accused of being rape, men just aren't given that kind of responsibility. If you're going to have rough group sex with someone you hardly know that results in them being injured/bleeding, and then show no interest in her welfare afterwards and act the way they acted/spoke about her the way they spoke, then you could say that in terms of having a rape accusation thrown at them, they were "asking for it" - but of course that never gets said when it's the other way around. Peoples attitudes are completely imbalanced on the whole. Hopefully 'Ibelieveher' will make other men think about that and start taking more responsibility for their own actions.

Also, I actually think that rape trials should be handled differently and without the need for 'beyond reasonable doubt'. For example having a certain percentage of certainty perhaps, and leniancy in sentencing if someone is convicted with doubt.
I know that would probably never happen (and maybe it's a terrible idea idk) but if the conviction rate and number of people who don't even report is ever going to change then there needs to be some kind of overhaul on how cases are dealt with to reflect that it's practically impossible in most cases to know for certain if consent was given. It's completely different from things such as murder/robbery etc as it's not the act itself (sex) that's being questioned so the cases being handled differently would just be reflective of that too. And it'd mean bringing into question mens behaviours and actions much more than is currently the case, and the accused actually being on trial, rather than just the accuser.

[Niamh.]

Jackson and Oldings Ulster and International contracts with Ireland have been cancelled so some justice atleast

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Jackson and Oldings Ulster and International contracts with Ireland have been cancelled so some justice atleast

Justice has already happened in the court

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Justice has already happened in the court

Nah

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Justice has already happened in the court

That does not count!, they where found guilty on this forum, after all we have the top experts in every department on here examining all the evidence.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

That does not count!, they where found guilty on this forum, after all we have the top experts in every department on here examining all the evidence.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

That does not count!, they where found guilty on this forum, after all we have the top experts in every department on here examining all the evidence.

Looks like the IRFU agree

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Looks like the IRFU agree

More to do with sponsors than morals.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

More to do with sponsors than morals.

Either way justice is served

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Either way justice is served

If you say so.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

If you say so.

I sure do

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I sure do

I'm pleased for you

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Jackson and Oldings Ulster and International contracts with Ireland have been cancelled so some justice atleast

Good news.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Jackson and Oldings Ulster and International contracts with Ireland have been cancelled so some justice atleast

"After rape trials, is the court of public opinion now trumping the law?"

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...umping-the-law

Great article on this ^

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

"After rape trials, is the court of public opinion now trumping the law?"

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...umping-the-law

Great article on this ^

It is a great read, cheers Jamie

[Tom4784]

Normally I would respect the court's decision and when it came to wrong results, I'd place blame at the prosecution for not serving up a stronger case and letting down the victims but the more I read of this trial the more crooked it becomes. Having concrete evidence of rape struck off for flimsy reasons is unacceptable and throws the verdict into doubt.

They raped this girl, the evidence says as much, it's just that a lot of it was not allowed for illogical reasons.