[Tom4784]

It's a complete travesty of a trial but indicative of how most rape trials go. Rape trials are just character assassinations of the victims where they are untrustworthy until proven otherwise, it's not wonder report rates of rape is so low, who would want to put themselves through that?

The way rape trials are handled must change because the way this and so many other rape trials were handled were beyond disgusting, these rugby players were not on trial, it wasn't a trial about rape, it was a trial determining how many ways the court could blame the victim for what happened.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's a complete travesty of a trial but indicative of how most rape trials go. Rape trials are just character assassinations of the victims where they are untrustworthy until proven otherwise, it's not wonder report rates of rape is so low, who would want to put themselves through that?

The way rape trials are handled must change because the way this and so many other rape trials were handled were beyond disgusting, these rugby players were not on trial, it wasn't a trial about rape, it was a trial determining how many ways the court could blame the victim for what happened.

How many days were you there?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

How many days were you there?

I'm not going to debate with you if you don't even believe what you are saying.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'm not going to debate with you if you don't even believe what you are saying.

So no days. It's trial by a few articles.

A P.I. you aint

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

So no days. It's trial by a few articles.

A P.I. you aint

You heard it hear first folks, you can't comment on this story unless you were in the gallery!

Let's all gather round and listen to what LT has to say since he must have been present in that trial from start to finish.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

How many days were you there?

Probably about as many as you

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Probably about as many as you

.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Probably about as many as you

The jury were there 9 weeks

What point are you making?
I'm not accusing the jury of incompetence

[Crimson Dynamo]

If anyone has extra information about this case the trial missed please add it here?

[Maru]

Close SD thread 2.0 since debate by article is cancelled?

But really, Trial by article. I love that, LT. Well, I definitely prefer that to Trial by Social Media. Not a fan of social media. I've become a bit social media-phobic these past several months.

I think though because they were not convicted, doesn't necessarily mean they were innocent. But yes, sounds like they are a bunch of douche-bags... let's reward their behavior by feeding the outrage machine and pushing the bandwagon down the hill, because that makes the outrage machine's love of facts all the more credible.

I think it just creates a bigger smokescreen around the lessons that could be gleamed from such cases. Also... ironically, I think it enables the poor treatment of these women who report, when we all stoop to their level.

These are fairly serious allegations and they should be treated as such, and these women with dignity. But the defendants are also owed due process... but the "It's rape culture" fanatics need steam for their engine, so they have a penchant to over-rationalize these kinds of verdicts via social media to fit some darker interpretation... and social media has become the news, so the media picks this out straight away.

Did they televise this case? They do that here for some high profile cases and that does help nip some of that stuff in the bud... I think because most Americans like to see how our criminal courts are actually working, since most folk we will never usually have any reason to attend one for a large portion of their life (if ever). And usually jury summons are for things like civil cases. I watched the Casey Anthony trial most of the way through... very interesting. Especially when the jury would have to step away, we would hear the evidence, etc that would have to get knocked out, re-presented, inadmissible etc...

[user104658]

I don't think the issue is whether or not they still might be guilty, the point is more... like I said... where is society going if we start cheering on groups who see a court verdict and say "Meh, let's get 'em anyway!!". Is that not just the digital age equivalent of a lynch mob? And I'm sure lynch mobs DID hang plenty of guilty people... but that doesn't mean we should be in any rush to return to that brand of justice.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't think the issue is whether or not they still might be guilty, the point is more... like I said... where is society going if we start cheering on groups who see a court verdict and say "Meh, let's get 'em anyway!!". Is that not just the digital age equivalent of a lynch mob? And I'm sure lynch mobs DID hang plenty of guilty people... but that doesn't mean we should be in any rush to return to that brand of justice.

No one has been hanged as far as I'm aware

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

No one has been hanged as far as I'm aware

It's a metaphorical hanging, obviously. Like I said I'm not saying THESE guys don't deserve it - just that if it's a route that society goes down, it's only a matter of time before people who really aren't guilty are in the line of fire.

[thesheriff443]

If a woman walks around with her arse cheeks showing and her tits hanging out on a night out, men will say excitedly look at that.

If women see the same woman, they would say look at that slapper.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

If a woman walks around with her arse cheeks showing and her tits hanging out on a night out, men will say excitedly look at that.

If women see the same woman, they would say look at that slapper.

Wtf are you even going on about now?

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Wtf are you even going on about now?

Calm down, I'm saying not all women are united when it comes to other women.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Calm down, I'm saying not all women are united when it comes to other women.

I still have no idea where that fits into this discussion

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I still have no idea where that fits into this discussion

It fits in how some women view other woman, for some the idea of a woman going off with two blokes she only just met is disgusting.

[thesheriff443]

I would like every one!, regardless of gender or race to live a long and happy life free from fear, pain and suffering but as we all know that is not possible.

[Maru]

Just pulled this... very interesting the judge's own specific instructions on "consent".

Source: https://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-36740003.html

Nicola Anderson at rugby rape trial: 'Draw a distinction between consent and submission,' jury told

AFTER a lengthy delay in the morning for “technical reasons”, at last it was the turn of Judge Patricia Smyth to address the jury – but only on points of law.

“As far as the facts are concerned, they are for you to decide,” she told them.

Print-outs of her address were made available to jury, legal teams and even the media, distributed in business-like fashion by the court clerk, neatly stapled and still warm from the photocopier.

The judge’s words were carefully balanced as she explained each of the six counts on the indictment, what the prosecution has to prove and what the law means in respect of each.

Regarding count one, of rape, relating only to Paddy Jackson, Judge Smyth said that if the jury was sure that he did intentionally penetrate the alleged victim , it must go on and consider the second element of rape and they must ask themselves whether they were sure the woman did not consent.

“Consent has a particular legal meaning,” she pointed out. “A woman consents if she agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.”

The young woman had told the jury she did not consent. Mr Jackson told them that not only did she consent to sexual activity, but that she had instigated it.

Then the judge warned them that when considering the issue of consent, it is important “to draw a distinction between consent and submission”.

“Consent in some situations may be given enthusiastically, whereas in others it is given with reluctance – but nevertheless it is still consent,” she said.

“Where, however, a woman is so overcome by fear that she lacks any capacity either to give consent or to resist, that woman does not consent but is submitting to what takes place.”

And she said the prosecution does not have to prove that a woman resisted physically or that she said she did not consent.

Here, Judge Smyth advised the jury to apply their “combined good sense, experience and knowledge of human behaviour and modern behaviour to all the relevant facts”.

Deep in concentration, the courtroom listened.

The entire three days on which the trial had sat this week had required concentration.

On Wednesday, Frank O’Donoghue QC, for Stuart Olding, gave an extensive analysis of the evidence relating to his client, listing more than 20 questions he said he would like to have asked the young woman at the centre of this trial.

“Why was she unable to resist, why did she not say ‘no’?” he asked.

“Why did she open her mouth – why didn’t she keep her mouth closed? Why didn’t she scream – the house was occupied. There were a lot of middle-class girls downstairs – they weren’t going to tolerate a rape or anything like that.”

Just days after Ireland’s euphoric Grand Slam win at Twickenham, the presence of the two Ireland internationals in the dock, by way of contrast, was even starker than usual.

Eight weeks in, an extreme form of general weariness had set in.

Mr O’Donoghue claimed the authorities had let down his client Mr Olding, whom, he claimed, should not have been on trial in the first place. He added they had failed to investigate the evidence against him in a proper way.

The complaint at the heart of the case had been “devoid of detail” – and that inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s account were not down to “trauma” but “wild exaggeration” and “downright false allegation”.

He said the woman’s evidence was of “hopeless quality”, adding that “the investigation, testing and evaluation of this complaint was at best poor – at worst virtually non-existent”.

Olding, he said, had told the truth throughout, “warts and all”.

He described his client as a “reliable historian” – despite the level of alcohol he had consumed that night. This had entailed eight cans of Carlsberg, four pints of Guinness, two gin and tonics, five vodka lemonades and three shots.

He said Olding had “acted the big lad, bragging to his mates on social media”, adding the sportsman was “not proud” of the messages, but that they were on “what he thought to be the privacy of his own phone” and that they had “rebounded and been used against him”.

Arthur Harvey, for Blane McIlroy, meanwhile, had claimed he had “not got his lines wrong” and his client had not, as the prosecution had claimed, given the account that had been delegated to Stuart Olding in a conspiracy.

In closing their case, the prosecution had asked “lads or legends, you decide”, he said. But that’s not the question they need to answer, he pointed out.

“They may be either, neither or both.”

The final word for the four defendants went to Rory Harrison’s lawyer, Gavan Duffy. His client had given evidence to the court in an “honest, straightforward and candid manner”, he said.

Mr Harrison was no weasel who had used “weasel words” to comfort the complainant, he claimed, describing him instead as kind and honest.

In reference to a character witness who had described how Mr Harrison had helped her with her suitcase onto a bus, Mr Duffy said, “You might ask: ‘So what? What does it matter?’” But it had mattered to the woman, he said – and it should matter to the jury, he claimed because it gave “a great insight into his character”.

[thesheriff443]

If a two men walked up to a woman in the street and said come back to our hotel they would tell them where to go and even call the police

And yet the same two men in a club with a bit of chat and a few drinks say come back to our hotel and that woman does.

It's a funny old world when you think about it!.

[lime]

On Wednesday, Frank O’Donoghue QC, for Stuart Olding, gave an extensive analysis of the evidence relating to his client, listing more than 20 questions he said he would like to have asked the young woman at the centre of this trial.

“Why was she unable to resist, why did she not say ‘no’?” he asked.

“Why did she open her mouth – why didn’t she keep her mouth closed? Why didn’t she scream – the house was occupied. There were a lot of middle-class girls downstairs – they weren’t going to tolerate a rape or anything like that.


What an ignorant pig......so if there was any lower than whats considered "middle class girls" they would have been fine with rape.

Having being following this case I most definetely beleive her.

Olding didn't ask the girl for consent...he asked Jackson could he join in..

Blood on her trousers that was visable for taxi driver to see and blood on accused duvet...visably distressed leaving the house and in the taxi home infact in one of the messages between the accused she was described as being hysterical,

Seems she has good family and friends around her so hope they are keeping a watchfull eye over her..Some of the accused fans are no doubt going to shout abuse at her if she walks out in public again...Sadly it's probably best for her and family to leave Belfast

[Smithy]

Basically Niamh, the sheriff is blaming the victim

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Smithy

Basically Niamh, the sheriff is blaming the victim

Yeah looks about the size of it

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah looks about the size of it

So would you be happy if your daughter went off with two men she had only just met?