I really don't want to get involved in this - But you have just proven my point there. It cannot be proven from the medical evidence. You have just acknowledged an element of doubtYou've just contradicted yourself here because a 'laceration' means tearing and bleeding. Now perhaps you're trying to argue 'something else could have caused it'. Which is very unlikely but could be true and we then have to see how likely that is given she is saying they raped her. FYI juries are supposed to go on likelyhood on events happening..
Not read anything about the case until that article. Verdict sounds dodgy as hell.The Irish Times has a really good summary of the whole thing, for anyone who isn't that clued in, it's pretty fascinating.
I think the girl was ultimately let down by two major things, Dara being the obvious one, and the fact that she left it so long to come forward. The defence seemed to constantly use that against her.
The whole thing is a mess, though, something obviously happened that night (in my opinion) yet pretty much every bit of evidence is circumstantial and can't be proven. No wonder rape cases have such a low conviction rate.
That's my feeling too. I followed it as closely as time allowed with articles, on the radio and court transcripts on twitter. I was surprised by the speed of the decision and all four getting off.Not read anything about the case until that article. Verdict sounds dodgy as hell.
Also weird that the two doctors disagreed over the blood was just menstrual or a vaginal tear. Surely that is proveable either way?That's my feeling too. I followed it as closely as time allowed with articles, on the radio and court transcripts on twitter. I was surprised by the speed of the decision and all four getting off.
The problem here is all evidence in any rape case that doesn't have video or witness evidence "could be" wrong. Generally the balance of probability of likely outcomes should be applied. So tearing is strong supporting evidence because while it could be caused by consensual activity, it is less likely to be consensual because during consensual sex a woman becomes aroused and lubricates herself making the vaginal more flexible. The fact she claimed one of the men forced his hand inside her is likely to be the most likely cause of the tearing. Then there's the fact that the taxi driver noticed the stain on leaving the house, shows that the blood came from the activity with the men. That alongside her testimony should be pretty damning in itself.Personally I don't think the medical evidence amounts to much as the injuries "could" have been caused by consentual activity.
I'm just certain the defendants were lying on various points of what they did, what they said and what they meant. Not only that, they contradicted both each other and that witness Dara. Whereas the accuser's account I find entirely beliveable.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, juries can be almost certain of the defendants' guilt and still be compelled to acquit them as "almost" certain isn't enough. Public opinion isn't constrained in such a way though.
The problem here is all evidence in any rape case that doesn't have video or witness evidence "could be" wrong. Generally the balance of probability of likely outcomes should be applied. So tearing is strong supporting evidence because while it could be caused by consensual activity, it is less likely to be consensual because during consensual sex a woman becomes aroused and lubricates herself making the vaginal more flexible. The fact she claimed one of the men forced his hand inside her is likely to be the most likely cause of the tearing. Then there's the fact that the taxi driver noticed the stain on leaving the house, shows that the blood came from the activity with the men. That alongside her testimony should be pretty damning in itself.
Evidence is about 'beyond reasonable doubt' especially in rape cases. All of that alongside the inconsistent testimony from the accused including evidence of Paddy Jackson lying under testimony should have given a guilty verdict.
There's actually a problem with how the trial was conducted though. The Jury got to hear 1 day of her testimony versus 7 days of her being cross examined by the 4 defence teams. That's simply not balanced. The solicitors did their job to get their clients off very well by confusing the jury by trying to claim 'it could have been your period' after it was proven that she had vaginal tearing. They created doubt in the minds of the juries so to them perhaps it wasn't 'beyond reasonable doubt' but they got completely conned in my view.
The jury heard another doctor testify that the injury might have been a whole lot of nothing, so there’s your doubt. It really is asking a lot of a jury to be sure it was rape if it it didn’t even occur to someone who witnessed it that that’s what it was. It’s unfortunate that what you’re supposed to do to survive (not physically resist) makes a conviction so much less likely.The problem here is all evidence in any rape case that doesn't have video or witness evidence "could be" wrong. Generally the balance of probability of likely outcomes should be applied. So tearing is strong supporting evidence because while it could be caused by consensual activity, it is less likely to be consensual because during consensual sex a woman becomes aroused and lubricates herself making the vaginal more flexible. The fact she claimed one of the men forced his hand inside her is likely to be the most likely cause of the tearing. Then there's the fact that the taxi driver noticed the stain on leaving the house, shows that the blood came from the activity with the men. That alongside her testimony should be pretty damning in itself.
Evidence is about 'beyond reasonable doubt' especially in rape cases. All of that alongside the inconsistent testimony from the accused including evidence of Paddy Jackson lying under testimony should have given a guilty verdict.
There's actually a problem with how the trial was conducted though. The Jury got to hear 1 day of her testimony versus 7 days of her being cross examined by the 4 defence teams. That's simply not balanced. The solicitors did their job to get their clients off very well by confusing the jury by trying to claim 'it could have been your period' after it was proven that she had vaginal tearing. They created doubt in the minds of the juries so to them perhaps it wasn't 'beyond reasonable doubt' but they got completely conned in my view.
Just browsing this thread but I'm going to jump in because you're completely wrong about arousal/lubrication etc.The problem here is all evidence in any rape case that doesn't have video or witness evidence "could be" wrong. Generally the balance of probability of likely outcomes should be applied. So tearing is strong supporting evidence because while it could be caused by consensual activity, it is less likely to be consensual because during consensual sex a woman becomes aroused and lubricates herself making the vaginal more flexible. The fact she claimed one of the men forced his hand inside her is likely to be the most likely cause of the tearing. Then there's the fact that the taxi driver noticed the stain on leaving the house, shows that the blood came from the activity with the men. That alongside her testimony should be pretty damning in itself.
Evidence is about 'beyond reasonable doubt' especially in rape cases. All of that alongside the inconsistent testimony from the accused including evidence of Paddy Jackson lying under testimony should have given a guilty verdict.
There's actually a problem with how the trial was conducted though. The Jury got to hear 1 day of her testimony versus 7 days of her being cross examined by the 4 defence teams. That's simply not balanced. The solicitors did their job to get their clients off very well by confusing the jury by trying to claim 'it could have been your period' after it was proven that she had vaginal tearing. They created doubt in the minds of the juries so to them perhaps it wasn't 'beyond reasonable doubt' but they got completely conned in my view.
The entire point of court is when evidence is questionable, it’s why they’re called contests. When evidence is strong it’s agreed and disposed of outside court, people simply plead.I am not contradicting myself - I am stating what is admissible before a Jury within a court of law.
As you have stated there is a doubt so a Jury has to view this evidence as doubtful.
As regards holes in the testimony of the boys - There is equally a lot within the prosecution.
My standing from outset is this should never have gone to court as the evidence is not there.
Yeah I agree. Slight tearing occurs regularly during sex, especially when you're, um, large compared to her.Just browsing this thread but I'm going to jump in because you're completely wrong about arousal/lubrication etc.
Many women react 'normally' when raped. There have been many instances of full orgasms. It's also very common for tearing/damage to happen during consensual sex. This line of thought is a tricky one to pursue, because as is often the case in rape cases, it's all very difficult to prove due to the circumstantial nature of the crime.
Any guy that talks about women in that way is scum, simple as. Regardless of if they are trying to act the big man amongst mates. There's a big difference in simply boasting about sex and the stuff they said (who knows what the deleted messages said that they couldn't recover). Just my opinion of course.I've read what @Massive Spanner has posted. I'll be honest, the men come out of this horrendously. Everything about it just seems a bit... rotten.
I remember arguing that the Ched Evans conviction was dangerous. But on what has been presented to the media (although I appreciate that what @noodlehair says about this being a diluted account of proceedings) I can't help but 'think' they're talking shite.
In particular, Jackson's claim that they didn't have intercourse which contradicts what Dara Florence claims she saw. And as for that McIlroy halfwit - there's not a shred of his account which stacks up with... anything.
The prosecution argued the account McIlroy gave was actually the line meant for Olding - and I'm inclined to agree.
As for the texts, I don't think much should be read into them. Calling men 'scum' for boasting about having sex with other women seems a bit uppity.
All in all, I can see why so many people are angry.
Which texts are you referring to, as I feel like I might have missed something horrendous? Texting your Whatsapp group saying something along the lines of: 'just spit roasted a Belfast bird with Davey' is absolutely nothing in my opinion. I wouldn't label people 'scum' for that.Any guy that talks about women in that way is scum, simple as. Regardless of if they are trying to act the big man amongst mates. There's a big difference in simply boasting about sex and the stuff they said (who knows what the deleted messages said that they couldn't recover). Just my opinion of course.
Yeah I need to see some of these whatsapp messages before I jump on the bandwagon.Which texts are you referring to, as I feel like I might have missed something horrendous? Texting your Whatsapp group saying something along the lines of: 'just spit roasted a Belfast bird with Davey' is absolutely nothing in my opinion. I wouldn't label people 'scum' for that.
Plus, how people behave on Whatsapp with their mates in no way reflects what they actually believe, what their occupation is or how they carry on day to day.
While that's true, their actions suggest that at best they are boorish, with a lack of respect towards women.Yeah I need to see some of these whatsapp messages before I jump on the bandwagon.
Guys can say some messed up shit in a bragging or joking way among themselves that has no relevance to how they treat people in the real world
https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anato...rrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032Yeah I need to see some of these whatsapp messages before I jump on the bandwagon.
Guys can say some messed up shit in a bragging or joking way among themselves that has no relevance to how they treat people in the real world
That's a pretty bleak read tbh.
Yep, both Second Captains and Off The Ball had good discussions on this. Or rather on sex and consent generally off the back of it.Seconds Captain made their discussion on this free-to-air. I'd really recommend listening to it.
People don't get charged off the claim alone. The police will ask the claimant if she told anyone/anyone was around that might remember what happened and depending on the picture that emerges, i.e CCTV showing the dude carry her into a taxi, they might proceed with the case.Maybe this is the wrong thread to ask this question but, what the hell. If a woman accuses a man of rape and claims she had no memory of giving consent to have sex and his response is that he also had no memory of having sex, would both be liable for sexual assault charges on the basis that neither party gave (or remembers giving) consent to the other.
What if CCTV shows the man carrying the woman into a taxi and then later it emerges it shows the woman helping the man out of the taxi. The next day they both text friends saying they think something happened but they don't remember. On what basis, if at all, would police proceed?People don't get charged off the claim alone. The police will ask the claimant if she told anyone/anyone was around that might remember what happened and depending on the picture that emerges, i.e CCTV showing the dude carry her into a taxi, they might proceed with the case.
Reckon they'd probably both be told to stop wasting police time imoWhat if CCTV shows the man carrying the woman into a taxi and then later it emerges it shows the woman helping the man out of the taxi. The next day they both text friends saying they think something happened but they don't remember. On what basis, if at all, would police proceed?
That's probably the place to start and stop there.Not seen enough of the evidence to offer an opinion on this case
Are you actually serious? None of this has to do with sexual preferences. You can have the weirdest preferences without being a misogynist. My problem is with guys who act like fecking children about sex. They have sex with some girl and then run off to brag about it to their mates like a bloody teenager. Like it or not, these guys messages reveal their attitude towards women to be absolute shit. Don't give me this 'private' shit either. A person reveals much more of his true attitude in private than they do in how they act in public. This has nothing to do with legality. I completely agree that there wasn't enough evidence to convict them but again there is more than enough that they should be called out on their behaviour. It's their morals I'm calling into question not whether they should be behind bars.Always this backlash against ‘lads’ behaving in an abhorrent and misogynistic but legal way. Not sure if it’s them not being able to contemplate threesomes / weird sexual preferences or just jealousy.
Not seen enough of the evidence to offer an opinion on this case but I always think the starting point for a jury is more towards guilty in cases like this, unlikeable ‘lads’, jealousy, disapproval.
It's the social media age though GB. They come across as cnuts. Despite the not guilty, I don't want them representing Ireland ever.Neither me or my mates talk about our sex lives to each other, never. I can’t believe that anyone with an ounce of maturity would unless they have a medical issue they’re worried about
My experience is blokes joke about sex an awful lot but it is always joking. If one friend asked another seriously 'how often do you have sex?' or 'how long does it usually take?' it would be so embarrassing I don't think the friendship would remain the same. Maybe it's different for today's 20 year-olds and one of them will come on to tell us?Neither me or my mates talk about our sex lives to each other, never. I can’t believe that anyone with an ounce of maturity would unless they have a medical issue they’re worried about
I agree, I wonder how many Irish rugby fans agree. I wonder what conclusion the IRFU will come to.It's the social media age though GB. They come across as cnuts. Despite the not guilty, I don't want them representing Ireland ever.
I think they know it's a PR disaster. I can see them not being selected, or maybe a case of they wait a few years and see what public opinion is like then. If they were called up tomorrow there would be massive protests from what I've seen and heard.I wonder what conclusion the IRFU will come to.
Let's pretend there was no rape trial. If everyone had agreed it was all consensual and just a messy bit of fun at the end of a night. But for some reason these Whatsapp messages still came into public light, would you still feel they should be kicked off the team(s)?I think they know it's a PR disaster. I can see them not being selected, or maybe a case of they wait a few years and see what public opinion is like then. If they were called up tomorrow there would be massive protests from what I've seen and heard.
People have generally concluded that they might not have been guilty in any legal sense, but they've disgraced themselves through their conduct and all their messages which have been published, and that's enough for them to stay out in the cold indefinitely in my opinion.
Ah yes, that's why these cases have a ~20% conviction rate I suppose. What a load of tosh.Always this backlash against ‘lads’ behaving in an abhorrent and misogynistic but legal way. Not sure if it’s them not being able to contemplate threesomes / weird sexual preferences or just jealousy.
Not seen enough of the evidence to offer an opinion on this case but I always think the starting point for a jury is more towards guilty in cases like this, unlikeable ‘lads’, jealousy, disapproval.
