To ask all Irish women to please show solidarity today?

[RottenTomatoes959]

Please join the rallies in support of the victim in belfast today,theres rallies in Dublin belfast and cork. Enough is enough and we can not take this one lying down. Show support to the brave young woman and lets not have this trial be in vain.
Something has to change.

Gah indeed?

[eyeroll]

Clever analogy run out of road, it seems
Better much next time

He has to prove it’s stolen tbf

nothing strange 4funnels , you admit she was raped though interesting, seems as though your stirring the pot a bit then.

4funnels wtf! Are you even aware there's already huge bias AGAINST rape victims BECAUSE of rape culture, victim blaming, myths, ignorance?

Jewel you should be embarrassed - but not for the reasons you state.

The right to a fair trial Is spouted in reference to the defendants repeatedly - where's the victims right to a fair trial? Especially in cases where the defendants are wealthy and powerful and can afford the best lawyers and the victims side is represented by the woefully underfunded state lawyers?

Are there any reports in the news on the marches?

Really Quimby? So if I'm invited to a house I can take their valuable antique, for example, and just walk out with it without telling the owner. And to get it back he has to stand up in court and prove he didn't give it to me?

That seems strange. How could he prove that?

If it's the case the law needs changing there too! Inviting someone to my house isn't saying "help yourself to my belongings, consider them all a gift".

I think that pressure on the IRFU would also be appropriate.

Regardless of guilt or innocence, the WhatsApp messages alone show the sort of men potentially representing Ireland and already representing Ulster. A PR nightmare could be enough to see both organisations wash their hands of them. Poor consolation to the victim but at least it would send a message to other professional sportsmen that they risk their careers even if not their freedom by treating women in this way.

Don’t forget that the ‘highly credible female witness’ is only to be believed in parts. They are supposed to believe her when she says it was consensual (even though she later conceded that she say no signs of positive consent so her opinion is based on the fact that the victim was not fighting them off) but they aren’t supposed to believe her when she said it was intercourse and the one defendant asked her to join in (even though those 2 points agree with what victim said and the even the other defendant thought they were having intercourse)

This is the main bit of the whole thing that's baffling me. How is she credible, and Paddy Jackson credible when what she said she saw directly contradicts what he did. So either she's wrong/lying, or he's lying. Yet somehow despite contradicting each other she's credible and 'central' to the case and he's credible and of good character.

Also the length of deliberation is a huge issue for me. Over 8 weeks of trial, lots of evidence, lots of details and they deliberated for less than 4 hours? 28 minutes per week of evidence? That's not exactly screaming careful consideration of all of the information to me.

The Jury system seems skewed also, they get to decide but not provide any basis for their decision, It should have to be detailed to the presiding judge at least why they came to their decision to ensure there was no jury tampering.

Also the length of deliberation is a huge issue for me. Over 8 weeks of trial, lots of evidence, lots of details and they deliberated for less than 4 hours? 28 minutes per week of evidence? That's not exactly screaming careful consideration of all of the information to me.

I hate to say it but I'm thinking they already had their minds made up from the start.

Also the length of deliberation is a huge issue for me. Over 8 weeks of trial, lots of evidence, lots of details and they deliberated for less than 4 hours? 28 minutes per week of evidence? That's not exactly screaming careful consideration of all of the information to me

Yes, I'm sure they all just wanted to hurry along and get back home in time for Eastenders so just so just flipped a coin. FFS.

www.change.org/p/irfu-conduct-a-review-of-jackson-olding-macilroy-and-harrison-s-behaviour

Link to the IRFU petition, Situp.

11,500 signatories so far, I hope they pay attention. This is based not on their guilt or innocence, but on their behaviour and attitudes in general.

The conviction rate says it all really, just 5% lead to a conviction. No one can possibly think that 95% of rape allegations are lies, not when you think how harrowing the process is. And getting it as far as court is a challenge in itself. I've been through it; no one who wasn't really raped would want to go through that.

I'm not saying false allegations are not made, but I think they must be very rare.

I believe her

It's unfair to blame the jury.

They followed the judges direction; they could only find the men guilty if they knew for sure that the men knew for sure that the girl didn't consent.

And they couldn't be sure of that, because the men genuinely presumed she consented.

The Jury system seems skewed also, they get to decide but not provide any basis for their decision

So having actually sat in on the trial and listened to every piece of evidence from both the defence and prosecution and formulated a verdict based on that is not a good enough basis for their decision?

It should have to be detailed to the presiding judge at least why they came to their decision to ensure there was no jury tampering

Jury tampering by whom? Are you seriously considering that this happened?

not blaming the jury, I just think the clarification on their thought process to show that they followed the directions, how the evidence was interpreted, and a rationale for the outcome would be a useful tool for the courts themselves.

people are human, they were in a difficult poistion.

Yes, I'm sure they all just wanted to hurry along and get back home in time for Eastenders so just so just flipped a coin. FFS.

Yes, that's exactly what I said...

In a case where the "central, highly credible" witness made a statement that directly contradicted one of the defendants over the basic issue of intercourse happening or not happening plus 8 weeks worth of evidence I don't think it's ridiculous to be surprised, and concerned, that deliberations didn't even take half a day.

stop sensationalising PanGalaticGargleBlaster

Juries are not infallible, especially when poorly directed, as may have happened here.
Some of the judges directions look extremely odd. I have the benefit of being able to run them past an experienced prosecutor whose eyebrows were all the way round to the back of his head when I’d finished.

Parts of the cross examination of this woman reading sickened me. It's cases like this that are exactly why women struggle to report sexual assault

I don't think those men even cared whether the woman consented or not, judging by those disgusting text messages. They were just so disrespectful of women. It just wasn't on their radar. It was the same with the Ched Evans case.

BlueSapp

stop sensationalising PanGalaticGargleBlaster

Says the person inferring that the jury could have been tampered with