[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

.

[LeatherTrumpet]

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

[LeatherTrumpet]

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

[LeatherTrumpet]

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

[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.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

I think my point has been made

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I think my point has been made

I don't think it has.

You know as well as I do, trials like this means the jury believe either the prosecution or defense lawyers when its one word against another (particularly joint defendants who have been able to get their heads together and stories straight).... at the end of the day it came down to whose legal team was better. As professional, well paid rugby players who can probably afford the best against a girl who probably couldn't afford anywhere close to the fees these "men" paid.

[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...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

I don't think it has.

You know as well as I do, trials like this means the jury believe either the prosecution or defense lawyers when its one word against another (particularly joint defendants who have been able to get their heads together and stories straight).... at the end of the day it came down to whose legal team was better. As professional, well paid rugby players who can probably afford the best against a girl who probably couldn't afford anywhere close to the fees these "men" paid.

OJ Simpson was definitely innocent too!

[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.

[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

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It's not as similar to the Ched Evans case as you make out tbf LT. She didn't forget the night or anything, she was obviously upset that night as reinforced by the cab driver who would have no vested interest. She confided in her friend the next morning, she turned down an offer of money to shut up about it by one of mens father, the medical examiner found bleeding in her vagina etc etc

They tried to bribe her with money and a jury still found them not guilty?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

How did she get into their hotel room 3 on 1?

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I know what the article tells me and it does not say. I take it they did not kidnap her so Id expect its pertinent to the case and to why they were let off

Entering a hotel room is consenting to sex? **** me, I'm never going to Premier Inn again.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Well having heard and seen much more evidence than we have it appears the jury disagree with you

The jury aren't super human, the verdict lies on their opinion of the evidence presented. They aren't foolproof.

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

The problem is Niamh women have been found guilty of crying rape.

So...?
Men have been found guilty of rape too.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

like murders, muggings etc you mean?

Murders leave more concrete evidence of a crime. A ****ing dead body to name one.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Found guilty of crying rape, how many cases of that can you find?

There will be a good number, there was a very recent one that made the news, text messages proved she agreed to sex.

[Toy Soldier]

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]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

The vicious circle a woman gets trapped in - your responsibility to not put yourself in a position where you could get raped and also you're a liar if you say you are but you don't need safe spaces because not not all men are bad, why are you so paranoid?

I'm not at all paranoid, a woman being raped is disgusting!
A woman crying rape after happily consenting is disgusting!

I don't seek to make women look bad and to make men look good.

[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.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

I don't seek to make women look bad and to make men look good.

And from that, I don't think anybody looks good that are involved in these types of cases. That's probably the only real deterrent. Hey, don't want your face on a mug shot?... don't act stupid and do things that will get you falsely reported.

If women are supposed to be mindful of putting themselves in situations that can lead to problems, then men must have the same standard applied to them as well.

That's part of the case that folk make for higher standards in our society... yes, binge drinking culture is generally bad for this. It creates cover for disgusting (and criminal) behavior, and no, because that person acted a fool while drunk doesn't dissolve them of all responsibility of their actions during those times... would be no different if it were any other crime, man or woman. If a person ran someone over or failed to operate their vehicle properly and wrecked their vehicle drunk, they can still be charged... but if two people get drunk and act stupid and something happens as a result of this that leads to a criminal case, that complicates things quite a bit... it's a bit of a grey area, because while both can be considered intoxicated, for some folk, consent to them individually is when you decide to go alone to a location (while not drunk) with someone and then getting drunk. That would be like, whatever happens from here would be the point of it. That does happen.

We can have a law that says two folk can't get drunk and have sex, but then that's overreaching because for some, that is the point, going out to get drunk and have one night stands... so that's where this is really difficult in the courts, because in some cases, all the facts are fuzzy. Yes, there's evidence they had sex and it was forceful, but when we have two people who can barely remember what actually transpired, it's hard to know the truth and maybe it's questionable if their "testimony" is even trustworthy...

Personally, I don't get drunk around people I don't know, in the rare case I do. I make sure I have a "caretaker" (usually my husband, but in the past it's been my boyfriends). I don't like the idea of being out of control, but because I know other people do it and that's what they enjoy... it's hard for me to sit back here and judge those people accordingly. However, that is what is happening... we are judging both the woman and the man for acting out of character... and the case when tried by social media/social justice I guess is to paint character assassinations in that direction, and not really an attempt to get to the real truth...? I guess is the argument for more reason.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

There will be a good number, there was a very recent one that made the news, text messages proved she agreed to sex.

Men have been convicted of rape.

I'm not sure what relevance other cases have to this one?

But the text message thing is kind of fishy, I don't see how a text message proves consent? What if someone was to arrange a hook-up for sex on Tindr, then once they're round the flat gets raped? They change their mind or the other person forces them into doing something they're not into?

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Men have been convicted of rape.

I'm not sure what relevance other cases have to this one?

But the text message thing is kind of fishy, I don't see how a text message proves consent? What if someone was to arrange a hook-up for sex on Tindr, then once they're round the flat gets raped? They change their mind or the other person forces them into doing something they're not into?

If I remember rightly the text messages she sent to friends after they had sex, with no mention of rape.

All I'm saying is, every case is different, and if a woman says she has been raped that don't make that man a rapist until it's proven

In the same way a woman is not lying about being raped until it's proven that she is.

But at the end of the day it's based on evidence and who the jury believe.

I have a lovely friend who was raped two years ago by two men and was beaten up.

[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.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

If I remember rightly the text messages she sent to friends after they had sex, with no mention of rape.

All I'm saying is, every case is different, and if a woman says she has been raped that don't make that man a rapist until it's proven

In the same way a woman is not lying about being raped until it's proven that she is.

But at the end of the day it's based on evidence and who the jury believe.

I have a lovely friend who was raped two years ago by two men and was beaten up.

Oh, I quite agree BIB. But I think in this case people aren't just saying so based on her simply saying she was raped, but are interpreting the evidence to draw their conclusions either way. Similar way to the jury are asked to.

If they were saying they believe her, just because it's a simple case of we believe a woman and don't believe a man then I'd agree wholeheartedly.

[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!.