Ulster Rugby Rape Trial - Not guilty to all charges

ZibbidooZibbidooZibbidoo

Thank you for explaining all your vitriol against me. LOL.

No worries, just looking for a bit of an explanation for that outburst!

I know it is a difficult subject but we are actually allowed to say things that are not litigious..

What pisses me off, and I think it should be banned, is the accused are allowed to speak to press afterwards about their relief at being found innocent. They weren't. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

And they're always dripping with smugness and self satisfaction. It makes me sick. Why say anything at all?

Box this topic clearly bores you. Why don’t you find another thread?

would "not proven" be useful in such cases, I wonder.

Gah. I need to go and kick the living daylights out of something (I mean an object).

What pisses me off, and I think it should be banned, is the accused are allowed to speak to press afterwards about their relief at being found innocent. They weren't. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

*sorry I should add
I mean, less coverage might mean fewer crazies trying to locate her

thank you Quentin, I will look at that.

7to25 "I looked at my phone and saw that this story was about 8th in the order."

yes I have been surprised at the lack of prominence on news sites...but, I wonder if it's to protect her identity?

Frank Greaneys Twitter feed is very thorough spring

that information from Twitter

does anyone know what the origin is?

Will court transcripts be available?

Sadly this will be old news in a day or two. It really will be.

NEXT....

Glosswitch nails it

www.independent.co.uk/voices/ireland-ulster-rugby-rape-case-not-guilty-brendan-kelly-qc-victim-a8278216.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Because the prosecution have to comply with loads of rules around admissible evidence and lines of questioning. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems as though similar restrictions don't apply to the defence and they can speculate away.

That's probably ok in other cases because the integrity of the complainant isn't being questioned. But in rapes in often ends up as his word against hers. In that case the complainant should be protected. She's not on trial

I don't follow. REbutted all what?

Sophocles,

Do you not think that the prosecution could have rebutted all that to shreds?

They didn't.

Agree with what maryz posted.

Someone was economical with the truth in some way.

It wasn't the woman.

And at very, very least these men are atrocious, pitiful specimens. I have nothing but the profoundest contempt for them and their supporters.

Another #metoo moment. Honestly, fuck this world sometimes. This shit has to stop.

It was inevitable they would get off because as Quentin said "The man would have to explain what he did to actively get consent, rather than the victim defend why she didnt consent.
We could get rid of the "reasonable belief of consent" clause as it actively works against the lack of capacity clause (e.g through drink or drugs).
We could introduce a crime like "reckless penetration" or "penetrating without due care and attention" for cases where it seems the man did very little to get consent but rape can't be proved." Proving that they did get consent is the only way cases like this could result in conviction.

I value MN and don’t want it in danger from a libel trial, and I also haven’t followed the full details of this case, but I will say that a strategic campaign of loud libel in less financially vulnerable spaces could be defended on the balance of probabilities not “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Or, yes, a civil case for damages if the poor woman could summon up the almost superhuman emotional strength necessary. That is why we can safely say that OJ Simpson is probably a double murderer regardless of his legal “innocence”.

Sadly, boxthefox, I think you are probably right.

I'm comforted a bit by a conversation I had with a group of rugby playing teenagers the other day who concluded that they are scumbags whether or not they are found guilty of anything. These kids admitted that the contents of their WhatsApp groups isn't great, but even they saw that these guys attitudes were beyond acceptable.

I've suggested they delete and restart their groups, and think a little more carefully about their own attitudes.

I see mumsnet are deleting posts now, so I will rephrase

Having followed this closely, read most of the Irish Times and Belfast Telegraph reports and a number of very detailed twitter feeds, it seems that all the men's stories didn't match which is a bit strange as they were all giving evidence under oath.

If that's the case, then at least one of them was lying in court; we know for sure that another is guilty of deleting evidence. And they are all guilty of misogyny and treating women extremely badly (according to themselves).

Therefore, they should not be representing their country in a sport watched by thousands of impressionable kids. These guys are not heroes.

I looked at my phone and saw that this story was about 8th in the order.
Wharbouys was number one (fair enough) but a deaf musician was number two.
And I like classical music BUT somebody made that decision

It really is kikashi. Those poor girls.

Maryz,

Without wishing to sound too ridiculous, I have a feeling that there are many places where sportsmen, and men in general gather where the air will be punched tonight in solidarity with the famous four.

Think about it, I am probably not 100% right, but certainly not wrong about the pack acting that way WRT women who might dare defend themselves.

I understand everyone has a right to legal representation but I wonder if any of the defence barristers have daughters. The questions they asked weren't to get to the truth but present a discredited image of the young woman

Having followed this closely, read most of the Irish Times and Belfast Telegraph reports and a number of very detailed twitter feeds, I've come to the conclusion that at least one of the men was lying.

They had to be - their stories didn't match.

Whether that is because one was telling the truth, or because they were all too pissed to know what was going on, or because it was a deliberate tactic to confuse the jury I don't know, but it is not possible for all of their stories, as told under oath, to be true.

So presuming at least one of them was lying in court, at least one of them is guilty of something. And another is guilty of deleting evidence. And they are all guilty of misogyny and treating women extremely badly (according to themselves).

Therefore, they should not be representing their country in a sport watched by thousands of impressionable kids. These guys are not heroes.

Zibbidoo that is so grim - I'm beyond words today. Utterly, utterly depressing.