Belfast Rugby Players Rape Trial

[Mciahel Goodman]

Let's go over it again, seeing as you want to try and twist it.

Start here.

An incident did occur. Whether it was rape, sexual misconduct or whatever is what the prosecution failed to prove.

By “whatever” I assume you mean consensual sex?

Hardly consensual sex. I agree that you have to presume the innocence of a crime when the law falls that way but surely common sense also dictates that no woman would be adamant she had been raped or sexually assaulted right after the incident took place for no reason.

I'd assume that something happened that wasn't consensual and there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. Not the same as consensual sex though.

Are you able to understand the concept of speculation? It often forms a large part of the process wherein human beings come to an understanding of a particular event.

Anyway, my presumption is easily explained because it's the same presumption that formed the entire basis of the prosecution's case. Furthermore, being found not guilty is not being found innocent, though it might mean the same in this case (I don't know, and neither do you). Also, presumed innocence due to lack of evidence is not the same as innocence, though legally it means you won't be convicted.

Don't misquote me just because you pick up on a vibe in one post that makes you jump to the offense before you read the entire exchange. Or if you have read the entire exchange, before you understand it.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Three times in one post you claimed it wasn't consensual. The very thing the jury did not find. I'm not a lawyer, there could be a subtle difference I don't get, but as a layperson i wouldn't take the chance making those statements.

Spot on. People do need to be circumspect with that kind of allegation.

The above post.

Maybe apply the same circumspection when accusing me of accusing people of doing things?

 

[adexkola]

I remembered my friend and I shared a room in our early 20's. He brought some girl back and started having sex with her. All I could do was laugh hysterically. I'm not sure why I found the whole thing hilarious but even they at one point they started laughing. It was all bit bizzare to be honest. Also at no point did I want to like join in or anything.

Another strange thing was that he was banging his big brother's girlfriend's younger sister who were also in the house. Everyone was laughing about it the next day. Ah well some people are just not that fussed I guess.

I don't get the appeal. Something must have gone wrong somewhere in my life, if I ever am OK with having sex under said circumstances.

 

[Oscie]

Par for the course when a trial ends up in a verdict people don't like is to claim that not guilty doesn't mean innocent.

Whilst true if we hold to that we might as well determine every allegation made about anyone ever has credibility on the basis 'innocent' is not a finding open to juries in law.

 

[Dave89]

Let's go over it again, seeing as you want to try and twist it.

Start here.








Are you able to understand the concept of speculation? It often forms a large part of the process wherein human beings come to an understanding of a particular event.

Anyway, my presumption is easily explained because it's the same presumption that formed the entire basis of the prosecution's case. Furthermore, being found not guilty is not being found innocent, though it might mean the same in this case (I don't know, and neither do you). Also, presumed innocence due to lack of evidence is not the same as innocence, though legally it means you won't be convicted.

Don't misquote me just because you pick up on a vibe in one post that makes you jump to the offense before you read the entire exchange. Or if you have read the entire exchange, before you understand it.

Even if I didn't use the "rape" word, how often would I have to describe a sexual act you took part in as "non consensual" before you began to take offence?

 

[Tincanalley]

The above post.

Maybe apply the same circumspection when accusing me of accusing people of doing things?

Mciahel, I am not going to get in an argument with you. Phone a friend. Ask @Niall. The line "hardly consensual sex", could be taken a slur on the character of particular individuals, who have just been found not guilty of that particular offense. I - and @Dave89 I am sure - am saying this for your benefit and that of the CaF. Just some good advice and in a friendly spirit. Do what you want with it.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Even if I didn't use the "rape" word, how often would I have to describe a sexual act you took part in as "non consensual" before you began to take offence?

If I were the subject of one of the most high profile sexual assault cases in a state's history, I don't think I would take offense at one person reasoning out what has been reasoned out one way or the other in public discourse for a long time.

Par for the course...

It's par for the course when one of the men essentially states that the difference is perception. That the alleged victim perceived she was being assualted which the alleged accused didn't think had (and don't think have) a basis in reality. Add in weeks of very public discourse and you have something that isn't black and white.

The line "hardly consensual sex", could be taken a slur

It could, if you didn't add in the hypothetical context of the posts before and after. Which happily would occur in legal scenarios, so I'm not too worried (having not accused anyone of anything).

 

[Oscie]

Rape is always going to be incredibly difficult to prove without irrefutable evidence. You're not really ever going to change that unless we start tampering with the burden of proof for convictions. What if years to come there's dissatisfaction over the number of convictions for driving offences?

On the face of it it sounds like a glib comparison, granted. But if something is fundamentally extremely difficult to meet the threshold of conviction for then arbitrarily lowering that threshold to raise convictions is a slippery slope.

 

[Fully Fledged]

Be careful about misquoting me. I didn't accuse anyone of anything and in fact discuss the indeterminate nature of the situation within that post (as well as those which follow).

You said that you assume something happened that wasn't consensual. That's slander that could see you or the site sued. I believe that Jackson was also found not guilty of a lesser charge of sexual assault. That means he has been cleared of anything that is not consensual.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

You said that you assume something happened that wasn't consensual. That's slander that could see you or the site sued. I believe that Jackson was also found not guilty of a lesser charge of sexual assault. That means he has been cleared of anything that is not consensual.

Yes, I assumed that was the case. Of course that is the prosecution's original assumption, not mine.

I now no longer assume that to be the case. Perhaps my phrasing was off? I thought I made myself clear in subsequent posts that the entire matter could never be known one way or the other and is inherently "lose/lose".

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

True.

It's a lose/lose really. The woman will never get justice if she was actually assaulted/raped, the men will never have this disappear even if they didn't do anything that wasn't consensual.

This post ^

So, yeah, I won't be misquoted as having flat out accused people of crimes when I left the thread on that note. If my phrasing was clumsy, that's another matter, but my intent and thought process seems easy to understand from that final post.

 

[sullydnl]

Par for the course when a trial ends up in a verdict people don't like is to claim that not guilty doesn't mean innocent.

Whilst true if we hold to that we might as well determine every allegation made about anyone ever has credibility on the basis 'innocent' is not a finding open to juries in law.

Only if we assess the credibility of an accusation based solely on the "not guilty" verdict. In this case we've been exposed to a lot of evidence and testimony to inform our opinion. In other cases we'll be presented with different information and will have different views accordingly. Highlighting the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" doesn't automatically assign credibility to any accusation.

 

[Oscie]

Only if we assess the credibility of an accusation based solely on the "not guilty" verdict. In this case we've been exposed to a lot of evidence and testimony to inform our opinion. In other cases we'll be presented with different information and will have different views accordingly. Highlighting the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" doesn't automatically assign credibility to any accusation.

But it's not really a distinction that exists because it's not within the purview of any jury to come to an 'innocent' conclusion. Therefore we have guilty = definitely guilty, and not guilty = not innocent.

I'm uneasy at that.

 

[Fully Fledged]

Par for the course when a trial ends up in a verdict people don't like is to claim that not guilty doesn't mean innocent.

Whilst true if we hold to that we might as well determine every allegation made about anyone ever has credibility on the basis 'innocent' is not a finding open to juries in law.

I agree.
In the eyes of the law you are Innocent until proven guilty. Therefore if you are found not guilty you are still innocent. I really don't understand how some people can't understand that.

 

[Oscie]

I agree.
In the eyes of the law you are Innocent until proven guilty. Therefore if you are found not guilty you are still innocent. I really don't understand how some people can't understand that.

I think its roots are dissatisfaction at rape conviction rates, but that's sadly a consequence of the type of crime rape is. From efforts to lower the burden of conviction, to recent examples of the CPS withholding evidence in rape trials that would exonerate the accused to the believe that unique among all crimes we mustn't view those found not guilty under the law as being not guilty on the basis that juries do not exercise an option to find them innocent not open to them.

Of course rape conviction figures do not reflect reality but I disagree with people trying to replace one egregiousness with another.

People are entitled to think a court got a verdict wrong. Not sure there exists an entitlement to demand those accused pass a threshold that doesn't exist.

 

[berbatrick]

I agree.
In the eyes of the law you are Innocent until proven guilty. Therefore if you are found not guilty you are still innocent. I really don't understand how some people can't understand that.

OJ Simpson?

 

[Fully Fledged]

I think its roots are dissatisfaction at rape conviction rates, but that's sadly a consequence of the type of crime rape is. From efforts to lower the burden of conviction, to recent examples of the CPS withholding evidence in rape trials that would exonerate the accused to the believe that unique among all crimes we mustn't view those found not guilty under the law as being not guilty on the basis that juries do not exercise an option to find them innocent not open to them.

Of course rape conviction figures do not reflect reality but I disagree with people trying to replace one egregiousness with another.

People are entitled to think a court got a verdict wrong. Not sure there exists an entitlement to demand those accused pass a threshold that doesn't exist.

As the law stands they are already innocent The jury only has to find them not guilty for that fact to remain.

Yes I agree that rape cases are hard to prove and that is a problem but that should not change the principle of Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[sullydnl]

But it's not really a distinction that exists because it's not within the purview of any jury to come to an 'innocent' conclusion. Therefore we have guilty = definitely guilty, and not guilty = not innocent.

I'm uneasy at that.

I think the inability of the accused to have their innocence proven in court is more than made up for by the high level of certainty required to see them convicted.

Also, people who point out the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" usually do so in reference to how we should treat the accuser, not the accused.

I agree.
In the eyes of the law you are Innocent until proven guilty. Therefore if you are found not guilty you are still innocent. I really don't understand how some people can't understand that.

If you are found not guilty then you are innocent in the eyes of the law. That doesn't mean you actually are innocent though. Which, as I said above, is a very important distinction in terms of how we refer to the accuser.

 

[Fully Fledged]

OJ Simpson?

He was eventually proven guilty of another crime. The fact remains that in the eyes of the law he was innocent unless they found him guilty. We need to get racists out of the police force then he might not of got out.

We mightn't always like that fact but we would be glad of the fact if we were ever arrested and brought to trial.

 

[Fully Fledged]

I think the inability of the accused to have their innocence proven in court is more than made up for by the high level of certainty required to see them convicted.

Also, people who point out the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" usually do so in reference to how we should treat the accuser, not the accused.



If you are found not guilty then you are innocent in the eyes of the law. That doesn't mean you actually are innocent though. Which, as I said above, is a very important distinction in terms of how we refer to the accuser.

That's exactly what it means. You might have done what you were accused of but you are innocent of that crime.

 

[berbatrick]

He was eventually proven guilty of another crime. The fact remains that in the eyes of the law he was innocent unless they found him guilty. We need to get racists out of the police force then he might not of got out.

We mightn't always like that fact but we would be glad of the fact if we were ever arrested and brought to trial.

I was just pointing out that not being guilty beyond "resonable doubt" is what it means to be acquitted by the courts (assuming the system is working). That standard is very important in the legal system but I don't think public opinion can work with that same standard!
Here it means that the jury (presumably a fair one) found that there wasn't enough evidence to suggest for sure that the rugby player raped that girl. It doesn't necessarily mean that rape didn't happen.

 

[ivaldo]

I think the inability of the accused to have their innocence proven in court is more than made up for by the high level of certainty required to see them convicted.

You think? Here we are, on a discussion forum after the defendants were cleared and we have posters bemoaning the % of rape convinctions and others maintaining the belief that they were guilty. Their names have been dragged through the mud and, on the proviso they are innocent, the damage is unfairly irrevocable. If it were me and I were innocent of such crimes, the difficulty in obtaining a guilty verdict would not satisfy me.

 

[sullydnl]

That's exactly what it means. You might have done what you were accused of but you are innocent of that crime.

That statement makes absolutely zero sense and is a horrendous distortion of what "innocent until proven guilty" actually means.

If you murder someone then you are in fact guilty of murdering them, regardless of what any entity says or thinks. Contrary courtroom verdicts have no bearing on that as they cannot physically alter reality.

 

[adexkola]

I was just pointing out that not being guilty beyond "resonable doubt" is what it means to be acquitted by the courts (assuming the system is working). That standard is very important in the legal system but I don't think public opinion can work with that same standard!
Here it means that the jury (presumably a fair one) found that there wasn't enough evidence to suggest for sure that the rugby player raped that girl. It doesn't necessarily mean that rape didn't happen.

Man, feck public opinion. It's fickle, ignorant, biased and irrational.

 

[Fully Fledged]

I was just pointing out that not being guilty beyond "resonable doubt" is what it means to be acquitted by the courts (assuming the system is working). That standard is very important in the legal system but I don't think public opinion can work with that same standard!
Here it means that the jury (presumably a fair one) found that there wasn't enough evidence to suggest for sure that the rugby player raped that girl. It doesn't necessarily mean that rape didn't happen.

I know that if that was me and I was found not guilty I would hope that people would accept the verdict. I know that people wont people like to believe the worst in others but I would hope that at least some people would give me the benefit of the doubt.

 

[sullydnl]

You think? Here we are, on a discussion forum after the defendants were cleared and we have posters bemoaning the % of rape convinctions and others maintaining the belief that they were guilty. Their names have been dragged through the mud and, on the proviso they are innocent, the damage is unfairly irrevocable. If it were me and I were innocent of such crimes, the difficulty in obtaining a guilty verdict would not satisfy me.

The low conviction rates for rape are surely something to bemoan, even if there is little that can be done about it given the nature of the crime? That's a simple reality independent of this case.

As for people still maintaining the guilt of the accused, that's hardly surprising given that a "not guilty" verdict doesn't even preclude the jury themselves from being almost certain of the defendants' guilt.

As for the bold, I'm sure you wouldn't be satisfied in that scenario but then the point of the system isn't to satisfy either the accused or the accuser. The reality, however, is that the system would be heavily weighted in your favour, regardless of whether it's to your satisfaction or not. Few would agree to a higher probability of being convicted in exchange for a better chance of maintaining their reputation if found not guilty.

 

[ivaldo]

The low conviction rates for rape are surely something to bemoan, even if there is little that can be done about it given the nature of the crime? That's a simple reality independent of this case.

As for people still maintaining the guilt of the accused, that's hardly surprising given that a "not guilty" verdict doesn't even preclude the jury themselves from being almost certain of the defendants' guilt.

As for the bold, I'm sure you wouldn't be satisfied in that scenario but then the point of the system isn't to satisfy either the accused or the accuser. The reality, however, is that the system would be heavily weighted in your favour, regardless of whether it's to your satisfaction or not. Few would agree to a higher probability of being convicted in exchange for a better chance of maintaining their reputation if found not guilty.

Whether it's suprising or not is hardly relevant in the context of your post and my response. A low conviction rate doesnt in any way counter balance the life long shit and accusation you face as an accused, whether guilty or not, no matter what angle you look at it from.

 

[sullydnl]

Whether it's suprising or not is hardly relevant in the context of your post and my response. A low conviction rate doesnt in any way counter balance the life long shit and accusation you face as an accused, whether guilty or not, no matter what angle you look at it from.

No but again, I'm not looking at it from the perspective of that one individual.

Put it it this way: of all the things that make me uneasy about this system, the fact that innocent men can have their reputation unfairly tarnished falls some way behind the fact that rapists are extremely unlikely to be convicted, the fact that rape victims are extremely unlikely to get justice and the fact that those victims then face abuse and criticism as a result of their attempts to get that justice. In that context my immediate sympathy and focus is with the accusers, not the accused.

 

[jungledrums]

Par for the course when a trial ends up in a verdict people don't like is to claim that not guilty doesn't mean innocent.

Whilst true if we hold to that we might as well determine every allegation made about anyone ever has credibility on the basis 'innocent' is not a finding open to juries in law.

Well said.

 

[ivaldo]

No but again, I'm not looking at it from the perspective of that one individual.

Put it it this way: of all the things that make me uneasy about this system, the fact that innocent men can have their reputation unfairly tarnished falls some way behind the fact that rapists are extremely unlikely to be convicted, the fact that rape victims are extremely unlikely to get justice and the fact that those women then face abuse and criticism as a result of their attempts to get that justice. In that context my immediate sympathy and focus isn't with the accused.

You should be though. It needs to be looked at on an individual basis, breaking it down to a purely statistical level doesn't make the damage any less significant.

Why aren't you? It isn't just a case of having their reputation tarnished. The accused can have their lives ripped away from them for something they didn't do. To the point where they lose jobs, homes, family and the will to live. You're trivialising the effects of it here. Just because they might be in the minority doesn't mean they don't deserve the same level of protection as the accusers.

The system doesn't work for either party. Allowing sentencing based on negligible evidence or character references isn't the answer, no matter how much easier it might make you feel.

 

[Eyepopper]

And probably for the same reason. So it was a bit of cnut's trick for Jackson's lawyer to have a go at her for her inconsistent testimony when he responded to the verdict (see above)

To be fair, if you're orally raped I'd say you'd remember it, even if only enough to mention it to the person conducting the examination to gather physical evidence.

I've followed the case reasonably closely and I don't think any of them come out of it looking particularly well. From very early on I suspected they'd be found not guilty, it was an almost impossible case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and I have to say, from what I've seen, mainly due to gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecutions case.

As in a lot of cases I'd say the truth of what went on lies somewhere in the middle of the prosecution and defense.

 

[Ramshock]

Social media is awash with cnuts tearing this girl apart.

 

[kidbob]

Quick question, have seen some MPs using the IBelieveHer tag. Does this not open people up to a defamation suit? I mean you are basically calling guys who were found not guilty rapists in a public forum.

Not picking sides or anything in the case itself, just genuinely curious.

 

[jungledrums]

Put it it this way: of all the things that make me uneasy about this system, the fact that innocent men can have their reputation unfairly tarnished falls some way behind the fact that rapists are extremely unlikely to be convicted, the fact that rape victims are extremely unlikely to get justice and the fact that those victims then face abuse and criticism as a result of their attempts to get that justice. In that context my immediate sympathy and focus is with the accusers, not the accused.

I don’t know why you’ve tiered your levels of sympathy. You can feel sympathy for innocent men having their reputations tarnished while also feeling for victims that do not get justice.

As for people still maintaining the guilt of the accused, that's hardly surprising given that a "not guilty" verdict doesn't even preclude the jury themselves from being almost certain of the defendants' guilt.

As for the bold, I'm sure you wouldn't be satisfied in that scenario but then the point of the system isn't to satisfy either the accused or the accuser. The reality, however, is that the system would be heavily weighted in your favour, regardless of whether it's to your satisfaction or not. Few would agree to a higher probability of being convicted in exchange for a better chance of maintaining their reputation if found not guilty.

Genuine question, but doesn’t “almost certain” of guilt actually satisfy the criteria to convict? If the reasonable person is almost certain of the guilt of the accused, I believe that therefore goes beyond reasonable doubt. I may be wrong, happy to be educated otherwise if anyone knows.

To address your final point, I certainly don’t agree that the system being “heavily weighed in favour of the accused” therefore justifies the accused losing any credibility in the public sphere. Let’s not forget the jury etc have heard all the testimonies and been privy to all the available evidence, and have come to the conclusion, with more available knowledge than the social media brigade, that these men are not guilty.

 

[Paxi]

Social media is awash with cnuts tearing this girl apart.

It's fecking sickening!

 

[Paxi]

Quick question, have seen some MPs using the IBelieveHer tag. Does this not open people up to a defamation suit? I mean you are basically calling guys who were found not guilty rapists in a public forum.

Not picking sides or anything in the case itself, just genuinely curious.

Any links mate?

 

[adexkola]

Any links mate?

I think it's as easy as searching for the hashtag online

 

[sullydnl]

@ivaldo @jungledrums

I'm not saying that the damage done to those accused of rape isn't significant, it is. However, the nature of both the crime and the justice system is such that it's more likely for a rape victim to fail in their quest for justice than it is for an innocent person to be wrongly accused. It's therefore much more likely for a rape victim to fail in their quest for justice than it is for an innocent person to be accused and brought to trial.

My priorities aren't a reflection of how bad something is, they're a reflection of how likely something is. The issue you're highlighting (innocent people being taken to court) simply arises less frequently than the ones I highlighted, which makes it less of a problem for me overall. I agree that the accused deserve the same level of anonymity as accusers. Beyond that though they currently have all the advantages.

Of course that point of view doesn't hold for the individual wrongly accused but their experience is still no worse than that of those whose honest accusations are wrongly denied. A balance needs to be struck within the system between the interests of the possibly falsely accused and the interests of the possibly rightly accusing. That balance can't be struck if we just focus on the point of view of one individual in one scenario.

 

[sullydnl]

Genuine question, but doesn’t “almost certain” of guilt actually satisfy the criteria to convict? If the reasonable person is almost certain of the guilt of the accused, I believe that therefore goes beyond reasonable doubt. I may be wrong, happy to be educated otherwise if anyone knows.

In England and Wales the legal studies board apparently advocates the wording "proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof that makes you sure of the defendant’s guilt". In other words they have to be sure rather than almost sure, certain rather than almost certain. It's an extremely high threshold for the prosecution to meet.

 

[Paxi]

I think it's as easy as searching for the hashtag online

There are actually plenty I believe her/him hashtags too.