Ulster Rugby Rape Trial - Not guilty to all charges

@QuentinSummers.

Agree with you all the way.

The will just does not seem to be there for this radical thinking though sadly. Despite all the Rape Crisis Centres and women speaking up and all the rest of it.

The "I believe her" thing is very noble and supportive, but anyone saying that would need to have been at the trial every single day to really stand over what they are saying, not what social media tells them to say, and rise up together in a frenzy of right on judgment.

Knee jerk reactions are ridiculous. The defence did not meet the burden of proof. That is the reality.

Result is the men were acquitted. That is the law.

There is nothing wrong with believing the woman, however there is nothing more to be done now. If there is (apart from her taking a civil case) I would love to know what it is.

Rape is notoriously difficult to successfully prosecute. We all know this. Maybe some judicial research into why this is so might be more productive than a multitude of hashtags.

box of course there is. Things need to change.

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.
The court case could be heard by a panel of expert judges rather than a jury. The trial could be inquisitorial rather than adversarial (so more like an inquest or enquiry). This would also allow a wider range of verdicts.
We could use more sexual offence prevention orders where offenders are assessed as posing a risk to women, even if found not guilty.
We could change bail guidelines so men aren't hanging round for ages waiting for a charging decision and so the impact on innocent men is minimised.

I think in light of this case it should be forbidden to use rape myths as a defence.

So saying that because the victim didn't scream/fight back, she consented shouldn't be allowed given what we know about stress responses (fight, flight or FREEZE)

Suggesting her motivations for reporting shouldn't be allowed unless it can be backed up with evidence.so saying she was scared of videos going viral shouldn't have been admissible.

I believe her

There is nothing we can do now. The men have been acquitted. There is no appeal allowed against the verdict of a jury.

I am not saying it is right or correct or whatever, but this kind of thing is happening every Friday and Saturday night all over the world where drink and possibly drugs are taken. Sports men can be chased by certain women, it happens everywhere, that does not mean it should result in rape of course.

It really is one person's word against the other, unless of course there is incontrovertable proof of violent rape/assault, which I don't think was the case here.

So the burden of proof is on the woman to prove, rather than on the man to disprove. It was ever thus, and rape is notoriously difficult to prosecute with a guilty verdict, which can then of course be appealed etc.

I hope the woman is alright. It must be soul crushing for her today.

But realistically, what can be done? I wish I knew.

This is another trial that ended today in NI. Gavan Duffy was defence counsel in this case too as well as for Rory Harrison in the rape trial.

www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/sleepwalking-belfast-man-cleared-sexually-14468644

Is there an official detail of the Belfast protest? It would be a pita for me to go but wouldn't want to miss it if I can make it.

If they are such dead on lads then I'd at least have a modicum of respect for them if they openly said sorry that they behaved abhorrently & did something to promote active consent. But they can't do that as they lied about things. I think they do now know that they raped her. As pp says it is possible they didn't understand that she didn't consent as they were so entitled that they didn't think there was even a need for the question at the time.

It makes me feel sick. Definitely should not be role models for young people.

Prosecution were useless. I have nothing more to say about that aspect. The defence obviously played a blinder. That's adversarial law for you.

We can rant all we like but that's the reality, the prosecution didn't convince the jury so there was an element of doubt. And where it cannot be proven without reasonable doubt, the jury must acquit.

Clear heads, cool hearts. The lady may be able to take a civil case where the burden of proof is not as high as in a criminal case. Replaced by "on the balance of probabilities" I hope she does.

Going back a few messages, the last thing any of them want is a libel case - that would be on balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

What I know is that they are utter scum (based on their own messages and testimony). What I believe is that I believe her.

I've been expecting this verdict since the judge's comments, at the same time hoping against hope that this time things might be different. I just feel sick, for her, and for the world we live in.

Ok it didn’t post

This is on Twitter, I have not created this image.

Yes maryz
There's no way the prosecution would've been able to question those wank badgers they way the defence questioned her. It's not fair.

Fucking men. I hate the world today.

They gave evidence, but were hardly asked any questions. There was no bringing up of their past behaviour, the jury weren't shown their underwear (or pictures of their penises) and their messages were dismissed (effectively) as "banter", ie made up to show off, not their real opinions etc. They all told conflicting stories, but that's ok because they'd had a lot to drink, obviously, and that's ok, because they are men, obviously.

Then their character witnesses proved them to be absolutely perfect in every way.

It all made me wonder who exactly was on trial

There are a lot of half facts about the case being stated on this thread. And some interpretations of second hand information that are slightly but importantly incorrect.

Yep.

I'm so angry I can barely speak

I believe her. Those men are absolute scum

Yes, Justanotherzombie. I'm mentally convicting them of being sleazebags based on their (uncontested) messages that show their attitude to women.

I will never go to a rugby match that they are playing in. And won't go to an Ulster match if they are taken back by Ulster rugby. I will also be emailing the IRFU to strongly object to them being allowed to represent my country, because it's not just a job, it's much more than that, and there should be minimum standards of behaviour.

Quimby, how come if I say I didn't consent to having my handbag taken I'm believed, but if I say I didn't consent to having sex I have to prove it beyond doubt? Does anyone know?

So annoyed at this verdict. I didn’t think the prosecution were good at all. The closing argument was very short and left out many of the main points.

There are a lot of half facts about the case being stated on this thread. And some interpretations of second hand information that are slightly but importantly incorrect. It's very frustrating but at the end of the day, these guys have been shown up to be pretty scummy. That is all I know for sure.