The ulster rugby trial

[Dinny Breen]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

[Syferus]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

A lot of it ain't defamation.

Hopefully Paddy has plenty of time to be suing people over the next six or seven years.

[LooseCannon]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

Can they pay their corporation tax? 

[imtommygunn]

I heard rumours a while ago he could be on his way to france.

Unsure how much truth there may be in it. I suspect he will play again somewhere.

[Milltown Row2]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

A lot of it ain't defamation.

Hopefully Paddy has plenty of time to be suing people over the next six or seven years.

With your legal mind what is defamation ?

[Asal Mor]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

[Syferus]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

Nearly as predictable as your stance on everything in this thread.

[Milltown Row2]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

Nearly as predictable as your stance on everything in this thread.

Asked you a question but you are full of shit that you avoided it again.. tool

[sid waddell]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

[Minder]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

They where acquitted, let it go

[Milltown Row2]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?

[Lar Naparka]

Again I've seen figures bandied about left right and centre. Certainly crime is underreported in this jurisdiction generally and specifically sexual crime. I don't think the coverage of this case is going to help in this regard. This leads me on to my issues with this #ibelieveher movement.

Right I have the following issues with the #ibelieveher movement and today's protest for the following reasons.

A doubt many in the movement heard all the evidence in the case. The general public certainly didn't. Without hearing all the evidence it's impossible to have formed any sort of view of this women's credibility. The jury heard all the evidence and in very short order acquitted all 4 defendants. Significantly they acquitted McIlroy too who unlike Jackson and Olding did not have the defence of reasonable belief in consent. The jury could only have done that if they didn't believe the girl. Whilst I acknowledge that jurors can and do make mistakes. Both of those things are significant for me. If they didn't believe her then I think people have every right not to believe her. People shouldn't be castigated or abused for this.

2. The movement is doing more harm than good by spreading misinformation about the criminal justice system. The fact is rape trials are treated differently to any other type of trials. Rape victims are automatically eligible for special measures. Rules about admission of hearsay are less strict and non defendant bad character more strict etc. The criminal justice system does plenty to assist rape victims but this movement is portraying that it doesn't. That will put victims off coming forward.

3. There's a lot of background info that wasn't shared about the girl and for good reason.

4. Any attempt to explain this or reason with the movement has been labelled rape apologists or rapists. That doesn't help anyone

5. They've intensified the scrutiny on an alleged rape victim either deliberately or accidentally. That's counter productive in the extreme and again is likely to discourage rape victims from coming forward.

Excellent post David.

+1
I definitely second that. Thanks are due to both David and bcb for explaining the legalities in layman's (and woman's?) terms from the beginning of the hearing to the end.
Without their expert commentary, I'd be totally bemused from day one.
Going by what they have said and from what I could make out for myself, the judge handled a very complicated case very well and at all times was in control of proceedings. The legal eagles, for both sides, presented their respective arguments in a competent and professional manner.
Following the judges comprehensive and concise directions, the jury went out to consider the evidence presented to them and returned in a relatively short period of time with a unanimous verdict of Not Guilty in the case of all the defendants.
I appreciate that the complainant went through a horrific ordeal and genuinely feel sorry for her but, after due consideration, the jury felt that the prosecution had not proved their case.
From what I made of what David and bcb had to say, the jury did not believe the complainant's version of what happened in Jackson's bedroom and whether the defendants lied or came from a privileged background was not at issue.
I would also imagine that the jury were influenced by the testimony of the girl who walked into Jackson's bedroom and claimed that the complainant asked her to join in the proceedings.
I can also accept that the complainant has and had the absolute right to her bodily integrity as I heard another lawyer call it and that she had the right to say 'No" even if she had wound up in Jackson's bedroom of her own volition. But the defendants have rights also.
All of them faced the prospect of lengthy prison sentences and all are landed with huge legal costs and, in Jackson's and Olding's cases, the probable ruination of their professional careers.
If they were found guilty after due process, I would have no sympathy for them but the fact is they weren't.
That's where I disagree with the #believeher movement, no matter how well-intentioned at least some of them are. You can't have double legal standards in a democracy.
To protest at the verdict returned by the jury after all sides had their say is to imply that the judge, jury, legal representatives et al got it wrong.
I'm afraid all the evidence suggests otherwise.

[sid waddell]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?

I'm well able to read, thanks. If only the same could be said for you.

[Milltown Row2]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?

I'm well able to read, thanks. If only the same could be said for you.

You read the case through twitter and still favoured a guilty verdict, well read is something you ain't

[sid waddell]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?

I'm well able to read, thanks. If only the same could be said for you.

You read the case through twitter and still favoured a guilty verdict, well read is something you ain't

I'm well read enough to know when to put a full stop at the end of a sentence, at least.

Oh, and I still think they did it, by the way. I'd be quite up front about that.