The ulster rugby trial

[Syferus]

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/martina-devlin-twotier-morality-means-girls-face-an-impossible-list-of-dos-and-donts-36757069.html

Dear lord!!!

How does that nonsense get published??

Are you completely at a loss for common sense  to take on board some of the points made in that article?
Do you think there is no merit for such a rape case to be held in camera, for the complainant  or the accused who were deemed not guilty? That even in a trial where the prosecution case had much more substance, that such an experience for the complainant would be any easier? That such a court experience could be perceived as an off putting ordeal for a complainant?
You don't think people are entitled to have an opinion on the the loutish carry on of the accused?

No, we men must be appalled at all times and keep this feminist uprising down

The people who want to pretend rape and how it is (not) policed and punished isn't a massive issue seem to have used this verdict as a green flag to tee off on anyone critical of the process.

Is it really that hard for people to see beyond their prejudices and look at the human impact? These are your children, your friends, your sisters, your nieces, your wives, your girlfriends. If a rape happened to their loved ones the same people now castigating the woman and the protesters would be at the front of the lynch mob.

Change is never easy it seems.

[seafoid]

Saw a bit on the news there with the #ibelieveher crowd outside Laganside, usual crowd of headers, pink hair "bohemian" types.

Tge St Patrick's athletic types are worse

[TabClear]

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/martina-devlin-twotier-morality-means-girls-face-an-impossible-list-of-dos-and-donts-36757069.html

Dear lord!!!

How does that nonsense get published??

Are you completely at a loss for common sense  to take on board some of the points made in that article?
Do you think there is no merit for such a rape case to be held in camera, for the complainant  or the accused who were deemed not guilty? That even in a trial where the prosecution case had much more substance, that such an experience for the complainant would be any easier? That such a court experience could be perceived as an off putting ordeal for a complainant?
You don't think people are entitled to have an opinion on the the loutish carry on of the accused?

To be fair MS, that article is a pretty good indication of a lot of what is wrong with the general reporting on rape cases. You would expect it on social media but not in a mainstream newspaper (whatever you think of the Indo). She makes about 3 valid points that you have highlighted but these are lost because the rest of the article is such a crock of shit from her soapbox.

[square_ball]

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/martina-devlin-twotier-morality-means-girls-face-an-impossible-list-of-dos-and-donts-36757069.html

Dear lord!!!

How does that nonsense get published??

Are you completely at a loss for common sense  to take on board some of the points made in that article?
Do you think there is no merit for such a rape case to be held in camera, for the complainant  or the accused who were deemed not guilty? That even in a trial where the prosecution case had much more substance, that such an experience for the complainant would be any easier? That such a court experience could be perceived as an off putting ordeal for a complainant?
You don't think people are entitled to have an opinion on the the loutish carry on of the accused?

I was talking about the whole 'Do and Don't' list crap she spouts.

She makes a few valid points towards the end but in the main it's nonsense and simply fuelling the ongoing trial by social media.

[square_ball]

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/martina-devlin-twotier-morality-means-girls-face-an-impossible-list-of-dos-and-donts-36757069.html

Dear lord!!!

How does that nonsense get published??

Are you completely at a loss for common sense  to take on board some of the points made in that article?
Do you think there is no merit for such a rape case to be held in camera, for the complainant  or the accused who were deemed not guilty? That even in a trial where the prosecution case had much more substance, that such an experience for the complainant would be any easier? That such a court experience could be perceived as an off putting ordeal for a complainant?
You don't think people are entitled to have an opinion on the the loutish carry on of the accused?

No, we men must be appalled at all times and keep this feminist uprising down

The people who want to pretend rape and how it is (not) policed and punished isn't a massive issue seem to have used this verdict as a green flag to tee off on anyone critical of the process.

Is it really that hard for people to see beyond their prejudices and look at the human impact? These are your children, your friends, your sisters, your nieces, your wives, your girlfriends. If a rape happened to their loved ones the same people now castigating the woman and the protesters would be at the front of the lynch mob.

Change is never easy it seems.

But a rape didn't occur here!

[Asal Mor]

I'm sorry if you disagree with the result but I don't understand how anyone can advocate a system where the IP version of events are not challenged in a court of law. There's a lot of shite that she shouldn't be questioned for so long. Not 3 weeks ago everyone of this guardian reading crowd were celebrating how well she acquitted herself in the witness box. The IP version of events must be scrutinised as closely as the defendants if their is to be any sense of fairness or equality within the law.

There's this bizarre argument out there that seems to suggest that in cases of rape the IP's testimony should be above reproach.

Excellent post trileacman. They are angry that the girl was treated very badly and there's no doubt she was but what specific changes would they like to see to the system? It's terrible that in an accusation of gang rape the accuser gets questioned by several barristers but difficult to see a way round it. Anonymity until the verdict would be a good change but I don't think the protesters would want anything that would make life easier for the accused.

Personally I think any protests should be aimed at the police who were no doubt influenced by the prevailing culture in not questioning the accuser during her police interview. If they had, depending on the answers the girl had given, they could have either dropped the case or proceeded with a genuine case of conviction.

Very few  of these people who are so angry about the case seem to accept that the 100% correct verdict was reached by the jury given the evidence. That's not to say with 100% certainty that the girl wasn't raped.

If these protesters want the law changed so that a man has to be able to prove consent (maybe technology could play a role here- some kind of consent app?)beyond a reasonable doubt, that would be a worthwhile debate and if things did go that way at least it would be clear.

The problem with the protests is that they just seem angry and vindictive and will end up being about ruining the next few years of the accused men's lives.

[imtommygunn]

One thing that should never happen... The accuser should not have their underwear paraded around a courtroom. I have never heard of anything so demeaning and humiliating.

The proof of consent is an interesting one asal. The proof or disproof of consent would be difficult but to prove or disprove the lack of consent is probably equally so.

To be honest the whole thing is a minefield but I don't see how any other verdict could be reached. Whatever happened who knows and we will never know but things need to be conclusive to be sending peopleto jail.

[Hound]

This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.

I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??

Of course not. That already had to be clarified on this thread. People see what they want to see.

It's absolutely true!! FFS, why would you say otherwise Seanie?:

This directly from Rosanna Cooney's twitter:
~~~~~~~~~~
Judge:
Whether or not there are inconsistencies in the account the woman gave to the Doctor in the Rowan clinic and the account she gave to the police is a matter for you. If you decide there are inconsistencies you must decide why that must be so.

Trauma is a reason that can explain inconsistencies. If you are satisfied that trauma is the reason then the inconsistencies might not be that important to you.

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the defendants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Without the complainant's evidence there was clearly no case against the defendants. Medical evidence was very much inconclusive.

So as I said before, the jury had to decide whether she lied or made a mistake (as a result of trauma) when making the initial false allegation against Olding. Therefore, the judge was effectively instructing the jury to acquit if they thought she lied to the doctor (given the lack of other evidence).

This is the third or fourth time you've been pulled on this. You're either being deliberately disingenuous (which would make you a p***k as you'd be trying to skew the facts of a rape trial) or you're stupid. I'm not sure which it is but you feel free to decide.

What the judge actually said was that if they felt she lied to the doctor, she was directing them not to rely on that evidence unless they believed there was other independent evidence to support it. Yesterday you went as far at posting the utterly stupid comment that the judge had said, in these circumstances, the lads should "walk free".

I am as entitled to give my opinion on this as anyone, and I have no need for your pomposity.

If you don't think the judge's comments below were not important then you are entitled to that opinion. For me, in my opinion, I think it was absolutely key in the quick decision to acquit the defendants on all charges:

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the defendants.

Yes, we've been over this. She followed that with, as you well know,  "unless you find other independent evidence to support what she says"

So, now we've established that you selectively edit statements from the judge, would you like to explain how you arrived at the conclusion that the judge stated that the three should "walk free"?

Good man. The judge did not say "to support what she says", she said the jury can rely on independent evidence even if they do not rely on the woman's account. And, I did absolutely mention about the independent evidence in an earlier post (and I also said that my opinions are based solely on twitter summaries which can be unreliable), but it seems to me that in reality there was no other independent evidence as the medical evidence was inconclusive at best and the only third party evidence, while she said she saw sex, she said she didn't think she witnessed a rape.

So I won't go down your line of calling people names and saying "You're either being deliberately disingenuous (which would make you a p***k as you'd be trying to skew the facts of a rape trial) or you're stupid", because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But, in my opinion and based on twitter summaries, I honestly think it's hard to believe that anyone thinks there would be independent evidence that would come near convicting the defendants (particularly the 3 in the bedroom).

And therefore, in my opinion, the fact that she initially said that Olding vaginally raped her (and the police even charged him with that before changing to oral rape), together with the judge's closing summary and direction to the jury if they thought it was a deliberate lie, was key in the quick decision (which is the entire point I'm trying to make!

My guess is that most of the deliberations of the jury was around Harrison and one of his charges, as hardly any of the case against him depended on the complainant's initial complaint, but there was the driver and text messages, deletions, etc that were certainly worthy of discussion.

So nowhere, absolutely nowhere, at any time, did the judge say "they should walk free" if the jury found that she lied to Dr. Lavery, as you originally claimed?

Jeez Louise, can you not read?

How many times do you need it explained?

I never said "the judge said they should walk free".

IN MY OPINION, when the judge directed the jury to ignore that evidence of the complainant, and given IN MY OPINION, the other evidence was miles short of what would be needed to convict, then IN MY OPINION, the judge's direction was the equivalent of telling the Jury to acquit the defendants (if they believed the lie about Olding vaginally raping her was deliberate rather than error caused by trauma).

Which is why, IN MY OPINION, the jury was so quick to acquit 3 of the defendants, and IN MY OPINION I guess that most of the deliberations were around Harrison and the questions asked by the Jury seemed more likely to involve one of the two Harrison charges. 

[Owen Brannigan]

Oh dear, trouble ahead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43594349

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-juror-s-online-comments-are-referred-to-ag-1.3445059

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/two-quizzed-over-claims-woman-at-centre-of-rugby-rape-trial-was-identified-on-social-media-36758441.html

[magpie seanie]

Oh dear, trouble ahead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43594349

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-juror-s-online-comments-are-referred-to-ag-1.3445059

Astonishingly poor judgement.

[AZOffaly]

This is what I was referring to earlier. There's going to be serious pressure put on these jurors, especially in the context of the protests, to explain how they arrived at the conclusions they did so quickly.

[magpie seanie]

God love the poor craythurs.

[AZOffaly]

God love the poor craythurs.

Seanie, don't be like Syf. But that's not what I meant anyway. I meant they'll be getting offers of money etc. to go off the record.

[magpie seanie]

God love the poor craythurs.

Seanie, don't be like Syf. But that's not what I meant anyway. I meant they'll be getting offers of money etc. to go off the record.

I think there are more important issue to discuss than jurors being tempted to do something clearly illegal. 

[brokencrossbar1]

God love the poor craythurs.

With all respect Seanie these people have had the last 8-9 weeks of their lives consumed by this trial. They have had to listen to all the evidence and make a huge decision on the most high profile trial there has been for years. Now they have this decision being questioned significantly and people organising mass rallies....I can see how they might crack. It doesn't mean that the person should have responded but I can understand why they felt the necessity