Paddy Jackson & Stuart Olding Face Rape Charges

[UlsterRugby2012]

And there's no clear bias coming the other way? I mean the terrifying fanaticism from some of Ched Evan's supporters shows that cases like this seem to mostly have bias towards to male big name sport star.

We've seen it before and no doubt we'll it again.

Of course there is. Doesn’t mean you have to then pick a side and throw caution to the wind - use your brain ffs. Most people will take the verdict as it comes, as the jury has more information & has thought about it more than all of us.

You claiming you know what’s right and that the jury is wrong is quite frankly moronic.

None of us know if they’re innocent or not. But it’s obvious there isn’t enough evidence to find them guilty.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Also looking at Twitter it seems even the Irish don’t know the difference between Ireland and Northern Ireland....

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

100% he will be playing rugby in France next season.

 

[curtbob7]

100% he will be playing rugby in France next season.

or Bristol whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Doctor brought in by the defence which contradicted other medical professionals - obviously they're not gonna back the prosecution. I can;t help but think this is a case of a hell of a legal team doing its job rather than the "correct" verdict being found...

I know it's illegal, but that didn't stop Ched's supporters finding out the accusers name and ruining her life to the point she had to change identity and relocate at least once - that's more what I meant when I hope her name isn't released.

No, the doctor who examined her said that the findings were neither conclusive of rape nor what was used to cause them.

This afternoon the men’s trial heard from a forensic medical examiner about a laceration to the woman’s “vaginal wall” which could have been caused by a “penis, a finger or an object.”

He said it was not possible to determine what exactly had caused the injuries or whether they resulted from consensual activity.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.iri...njuries-after-alleged-rape-1.3399100?mode=amp

And then the examination was further criticised by a medical expert brought by the defence.

The standard to prove guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. Not guilty does not mean they didn't commit the crime, it means the prosecution could not prove it. Ignoring the Ched Evans case as it's unrelated (Also of far higher profile, bigger sport, bigger jurisdiction, less conclusive etc...), I'd be interested to hear why you think they're guilty. The amount of alcohol drank, the changing of allegations and the lack of evidence from the prosecution made be believe this was the open and shut case it turned out to be despite the absolute **** up made by the defence who never should have brought the accused to questioning. I am surprised the case wasn't thrown out after the change in allegations, the prosecution didn't prove anything beyond reasonable doubt and the defence probably could have said nothing and the same verdict would likely have been the result. The prosecutions case was essentially that there was evidence of sex and the girl said it wasn't consensual after the fact, as a man I'd be very disappointed if that was sufficient to put me away for 7 years.

 

[Thingimubob]

Of course there is. Doesn’t mean you have to then pick a side and throw caution to the wind - use your brain ffs. Most people will take the verdict as it comes, as the jury has more information & has thought about it more than all of us.

You claiming you know what’s right and that the jury is wrong is quite frankly moronic.

None of us know if they’re innocent or not. But it’s obvious there isn’t enough evidence to find them guilty.

Jesus Christ mate... I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are yours, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm calling you moronic and saying you should "use your brain ffs"

I've been following the trial and my personal opinion after looking at the evidence released is that it was non-consensual to her - likely they thought it was consensual, then panicked when it seemed like she didn't think so and put their mate on the task of calming her down and having their backs.

Not saying that I know more than the jury either, and I get the whole "not enough evidence" thing, it's just that I feel jury verdicts are rarely the be all and end all of whether someone is conclusively "innocent" - hence bg8 pointing out that there is a (subtle) difference between "not guilty" and "innocent". Not saying I know a better way of judging crimes either - as flawed as this system is, it appears to be the best we've got.

Plenty of high profile cases have controversially decided by juries despite the evidence being stacked the other way - just look at the biggest of them all in the OJ case (obviously different country's system and different in many other ways too, but just and example)

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

IMO, Ulster should give them a press conference saying they are moving forward, before giving the two a game ASAP as a show of support.

The way the courts work, we must no accept that they DID NOT DO IT and move forward accordingly.

Please don’t conflate “not guilty” with “did not do it”.

I agree they should be allowed to play again as I don’t think a not guilty verdict should affect you professionally.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Please don’t conflate “not guilty” with “did not do it”.

I agree they should be allowed to play again as I don’t think a not guilty verdict should affect you professionally.

"Not guilty" means that one is innocent of the crime in the eyes of the law. Therefore, the court has determined that they did not do it. It's not an issue of not having enough evidence, because of the innocent until proven guilty, they must be treated as if they did not do it.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

"Not guilty" means that one is innocent of the crime in the eyes of the law. Therefore, the court has determined that they did not do it. It's not an issue of not having enough evidence, because of the innocent until proven guilty, they must be treated as if they did not do it.

that's contrary to legal precedence, but if you wanna keep saying it i'm sure it will become true

 

[Thingimubob]

No, the doctor who examined her said that the findings were neither conclusive of rape nor what was used to cause them.

This afternoon the men’s trial heard from a forensic medical examiner about a laceration to the woman’s “vaginal wall” which could have been caused by a “penis, a finger or an object.”

He said it was not possible to determine what exactly had caused the injuries or whether they resulted from consensual activity.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/belfast-trial-hears-details-of-woman-s-injuries-after-alleged-rape-1.3399100?mode=amp

And then the examination was further criticised by a medical expert brought by the defence.

The standard to prove guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. Not guilty does not mean they didn't commit the crime, it means the prosecution could not prove it. Ignoring the Ched Evans case as it's unrelated (Also of far higher profile, bigger sport, bigger jurisdiction, less conclusive etc...), I'd be interested to hear why you think they're guilty. The amount of alcohol drank, the changing of allegations and the lack of evidence from the prosecution made be believe this was the open and shut case it turned out to be despite the absolute **** up made by the defence who never should have brought the accused to questioning. I am surprised the case wasn't thrown out after the change in allegations, the prosecution didn't prove anything beyond reasonable doubt and the defence probably could have said nothing and the same verdict would likely have been the result. The prosecutions case was essentially that there was evidence of sex and the girl said it wasn't consensual after the fact, as a man I'd be very disappointed if that was sufficient to put me away for 7 years.

Well yes actually - I never said that the doctor said it was conclusive of rape, they said it was apparently said that it's a common sexual injury from unfamiliar sexual activity i.e. forceful thrusts at painful angles for the girl (yeah I'm sick of typing that...), especially when neither really said

The texts they sent coupled following my the meet up to plan with the fact they panicked and started deleting incriminating texts stinks of guilt, especially with them getting their mate to be nice to her to try and calm things down and protect their back.

The thing is a very very common reaction during sexual assaults is for victims to report them freezing up - seems to be even more common to hear of that to ones where the victim is kicking and screaming as it's happening. I genuinely believe that the Ulster guys probably didn't realise it wasn't consensual (which is no excuse) - she said it was only as the third guy walked in that her fight or flight instinct properly kicked in.

I don't think they're monsters who went out to plan to rape someone, I just think they're stupid young men with zero respect for women, who were drunk and felt entitled to have what they wanted from her, blinding them to the fact she was not at all into it.

Genuinely though, what has she got to gain from falsely accusing them? Why come forward if it was consensual to her? Obviously I'm not saying that that is an automatic guilty verdict, just as I and other have said she 100% thought it was not consensual.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Genuinely though, what has she got to gain from falsely accusing them? Why come forward if it was consensual to her? Obviously I'm not saying that that is an automatic guilty verdict, just as I and other have said she 100% thought it was not consensual.

You can say that about most false accusations though. Yet they happen still.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

that's contrary to legal precedence, but if you wanna keep saying it i'm sure it will become true

Examples?

 

[jcahill1]

You can say that about most false accusations though. Yet they happen still.

So do rapes which don't result in successful prosecutions. I am left feeling really sad with the result of this case, although I think that the jurys' verdict was correct. The prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt. I just feel discouraged because if a rape did occur in a situation exactly like this, how could you prove it?

Sorry if quoting seems overly argumentative, I just believe that the amount of people with the ability to go through this emotional turmoil and attack for a lie is insignificant compared to victims who are just trying to find justice.

 

[Thingimubob]

You can say that about most false accusations though. Yet they happen still.

How often is there even a proven false accusation of rape? The whole "she probs wanted it then regretted it" arguement doesn't really hold water for me, and the percentage of actualy "false accusations" is likely tiny, but tends to get inflated by "not enough evidence" verdicts which is obviously a whole other kettle of fish.,

 

[UlsterRugby2012]

Well yes actually - I never said that the doctor said it was conclusive of rape, they said it was apparently said that it's a common sexual injury from unfamiliar sexual activity i.e. forceful thrusts at painful angles for the girl (yeah I'm sick of typing that...), especially when neither really said

The texts they sent coupled following my the meet up to plan with the fact they panicked and started deleting incriminating texts stinks of guilt, especially with them getting their mate to be nice to her to try and calm things down and protect their back.

The thing is a very very common reaction during sexual assaults is for victims to report them freezing up - seems to be even more common to hear of that to ones where the victim is kicking and screaming as it's happening. I genuinely believe that the Ulster guys probably didn't realise it wasn't consensual (which is no excuse) - she said it was only as the third guy walked in that her fight or flight instinct properly kicked in.

I don't think they're monsters who went out to plan to rape someone, I just think they're stupid young men with zero respect for women, who were drunk and felt entitled to have what they wanted from her, blinding them to the fact she was not at all into it.

Genuinely though, what has she got to gain from falsely accusing them? Why come forward if it was consensual to her? Obviously I'm not saying that that is an automatic guilty verdict, just as I and other have said she 100% thought it was not consensual.

The deleting of the texts has no bearing whether they were guilty or not. Sorry, but if something like that was brought to me in a surge of adrenaline I’d probably delete my texts too. I’d delete anything that would remotely make me look bad even if I knew I was 100% innocent.

What could be gained? I don’t know. But she says she thought she was being filmed when Dara walked in. It’s possible she could have thought it would be posted on social media, likely destroying her personal life. She turned her head immediately when she walked in.

Again, this is entirely speculation. None of this is evidence based which is the only thing that matters. You can’t just convict someone because you “think” it makes them look guilty.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

The texts they sent coupled following my the meet up to plan with the fact they panicked and started deleting incriminating texts stinks of guilt, especially with them getting their mate to be nice to her to try and calm things down and protect their back.

The thing is a very very common reaction during sexual assaults is for victims to report them freezing up - seems to be even more common to hear of that to ones where the victim is kicking and screaming as it's happening. I genuinely believe that the Ulster guys probably didn't realise it wasn't consensual (which is no excuse) - she said it was only as the third guy walked in that her fight or flight instinct properly kicked in.

I think this is all whataboutery to the actual action of rape though, meeting up the day after a night out doesn't mean they were planning anything either, its common enough. I also don't know how this 'I just think they're stupid young men' can't apply the bolded either.

I don't think they're monsters who went out to plan to rape someone, I just think they're stupid young men with zero respect for women, who were drunk and felt entitled to have what they wanted from her, blinding them to the fact she was not at all into it.

Genuinely though, what has she got to gain from falsely accusing them? Why come forward if it was consensual to her? Obviously I'm not saying that that is an automatic guilty verdict, just as I and other have said she 100% thought it was not consensual.

Contrary to what is common belief, a lack of consent does not mean the man is guilty. Its defined in NI as:

5.—(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Its very possible that there was actus reus (the action) but no mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing). You need both to commit rape and sexual assault which is the reason these cases are often seen as so unsatisfactory, there is no equivalent to manslaughter in sexual offences.

The girl was drunk too, possible regret, misremembering etc... must be considered too. It was undoubtedly a traumatic experience for her and I feel sorry for her but traumatic experiences don't need to be caused by another person and can be a result of one's own mistakes, bad decisions can also be made as a result of trauma as you alluded to earlier retroactively withdrawing her consent, or believing she didn't when she did might have been a result of this. From my point of view a lot of mental gymnastics have to be done to not give the accused the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Examples?

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1728701,00.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35698873

I tried to find a Northern Ireland based one. In the US we are "lucky" to have the OJ case to point at. But the essence is that civil cases have a lower burden of proof than criminal charges, and this is true in both the States and the UK. Basically a court can find that there isn't enough evidence to convict you of criminal charges and that you don't deserve punishment. Even after that is decided you can still be held liable for any damages done to that person.

In the case I pointed to. Some of the people tried with terrorism and found not guilty were however found liable for the terrorist attack.

 

[Thingimubob]

I think this is all whataboutery to the actual action of rape though, meeting up the day after a night out doesn't mean they were planning anything either, its common enough. I also don't know how this 'I just think they're stupid young men' can't apply the bolded either.


Contrary to what is common belief, a lack of consent does not mean the man is guilty. Its defined in NI as:

5.—(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Its very possible that there was actus reus (the action) but no mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing). You need both to commit rape and sexual assault which is the reason these cases are often seen as so unsatisfactory, there is no equivalent to manslaughter in sexual offences.

The girl was drunk too, possible regret, misremembering etc... must be considered too. It was undoubtedly a traumatic experience for her and I feel sorry for her but traumatic experiences don't need to be caused by another person and can be a result of one's own mistakes, bad decisions can also be made as a result of trauma as you alluded to earlier retroactively withdrawing her consent, or believing she didn't when she did might have been a result of this. From my point of view a lot of mental gymnastics have to be done to not give the accused the benefit of the doubt here.

Genuienly didnt know that about NI law, they def a bit of a sh*t law that'll hopefully be looked at in the future.

Saw a tweet that summed it up for me anyway:

"You don't need to be a monster to be a rapist. You only need to be entitled enough, and to act with a disregard for the other person."

I'll likely try and leave it there as little bit sick of the focusing on the whole sh*tshow.

 

[jcahill1]

The girl was drunk too, possible regret, misremembering etc... must be considered too. It was undoubtedly a traumatic experience for her and I feel sorry for her but traumatic experiences don't need to be caused by another person and can be a result of one's own mistakes, bad decisions can also be made as a result of trauma as you alluded to earlier retroactively withdrawing her consent, or believing she didn't when she did might have been a result of this. From my point of view a lot of mental gymnastics have to be done to not give the accused the benefit of the doubt here.

I can understand this point of view, but it also seems like it just places so much onus on the girl to do everything. If she doesnt verbally consent is it then withdrawing her consent to say she didn't want to after the fact? Is it not also fair to give the benefit of the doubt to a purported victim of a crime with notoriously low conviction rates?

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1728701,00.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35698873

I tried to find a Northern Ireland based one. In the US we are "lucky" to have the OJ case to point at. But the essence is that civil cases have a lower burden of proof than criminal charges, and this is true in both the States and the UK. Basically a court can find that there isn't enough evidence to convict you of criminal charges and that you don't deserve punishment. Even after that is decided you can still be held liable for any damages done to that person.

In the case I pointed to. Some of the people tried with terrorism and found not guilty were however found liable for the terrorist attack.

Ok, I see your point. However this is surely only applicable when a crime has still been permitted... Not what has happened in this situation