Ulster Rugby Rape Trial - Not guilty to all charges

[Quimby]

Verdict just returned
Not guilty to all four accused, all unanimous decisions.

All the rape myths are trotted out by the barristers.

As the defence lawyer claimed in this case (this is not quite verbatim)- it wasn't as if she was in a dark, alley, gagged and bound - she was in a house with 8 adults with paper thin walls (as you have seen with your own eyes) sound travels, she could have screamed the house down.

One of the other defence barristers said there were "very middle class" young women downstairs who would not have tolerated a rape going on upstairs.

I think the evidence from Dara, who looked into the bedroom and saw the complainant turn her head away and not indicate any sign of distress was pretty damning for most people I have discussed it with. But, it makes sense to me that you would do that - you don't want anyone else to witness your humiliation. It's not logical but it is what you might do.

My friend was raped at a house party in a bedroom - someone came in to the room and she pulled the cover over her head rather than beg for help, she didn't scream- she even had a coffee the next morning - she was traumatised and shocked and not behaving at all rationally. Why can people not accept the "frozen", Prey animal behaviour theory?? The guilt of not screaming and fighting like you imagine you would stays and replays over and over with the victims forever.

I'm surprised there is anyone convicted of rape

Too true. Here's some of my stories.

A friend of mine (years ago) came home from a night out, crying. She said she'd been raped. We all consoled her, and made her a cup of tea, and said she should call the police. She said no. No one would believe her. She wasn't credible.

Her reasons were that she'd been drinking. She slept with lots of men anyway (consensually), and that as she was in social care, she was the wrong type of victim. So she left it. And moved on.

I had an incident at a house that I voluntarily went back to. I had a drink, and then don't remember being in control after that. I don't want to go into details. But there were 2 men. And passed around like meat is an apt description. If anyone had walked in, they would have seen a 'threesome'. But that was not the case.

I did nothing. Because I chose to go back there. There were no witnesses. I could not prove anything.

Rape via my ex, I never did anything. How can you prove a boyfriend raped you? His word, your word.

Rape in a car with a 'friend'. I bled very very badly. I was only 16, so I didn't really understand what had happened. I did confide in another friend, and then they told an adult. But as I was already starting to be a 'prick tease' dressing in short skirts etc, then I had really brought that on myself, and they told me that it was 'sex gone wrong', not rape.

No witnesses, his word, my word. He was nearly 30.

My friend, (who I've spoken about before on these threads) was raped and beaten by a stranger. There were witnesses. There was evidence. STILL she had to go to trial. Her sexual history dragged up. How much did she drink, what was she wearing. 'Luckily' she never 'slept around' and she made a good credible witness.

Her rapist got 8 years (out sooner).

So, unless it's stranger rape, and violent, and you have witnesses, and plenty of evidence, I wouldn't put myself through it.

And men will continue to get away with it.

I don't know what the answer is. But I know that anyone who puts themselves through a trial and the 18 months to get to trial, and the hatred and vitriol women experience for 'crying rape', is probably telling the truth. There will be a teeny tiny minority who are not well, and make a false accusation. But then that is true of any crime.

For those of us who couldn't go through with it and those that did

CarrotyO I seen this yesterday. I don’t disagree with your post but I think it is important we are strong in the facts and figures we quote as we try to affect change. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3207578-Rape-attrition-rate-vs-conviction-rate

gluteus
The total lack of empathy to women these stories bring up is breathtaking.
Men honestly seem to think women are so vindictive they would have an intimate medical examination, discuss all the details in excruciating detail with stranger's, get ripped to shreds by a barrister, just for "revenge" (that is very unlikely to happen anyway as most men get off).
It's so totally depressing.

“In fact ideally I would like it for the defence not to be able to suggest the complainant is lying without evidence of such. I.e. bad character evidence or witnesses suggesting she regretted it. Maybe the same rules of hearsay should apply to the complainant as the defendant if they are going to be in the box for 8 days.”

But if the defence instruction is that the person is lying then they have to be able to put that to them. In the same way the prosecution call the defendants liars when based on the evidence of the complainant.

The same rules of hearsay do apply

Carrot your right we do need public inquiry into adult sexual abuse. Specifically they need to look this whole honest and reasonable belief of consent - I'm not sure how many other contrived have this element when they have to prove rape but it seems another way of saying I presumed she consented just because she wasn't fighting back. The only area of law where you can use ignorance of the law to defend yourself.
We now know that most rape victims don't fight back but just freeze even the defence medical expert conceded that during cross examination. I'm so angry about this verdict. There are not enough words in the English language that can describe my fury.

From the Telegraph's reporting on Stern's report:
"In her response, Vera Baird, the Solicitor General, made no mention of six per cent, adding instead: "Rapists must know that they won’t get away with it anymore, whatever the circumstances, even if the woman is someone they know, even if she is drunk.

"Things have changed, and they now stand a more than one in two chance of being convicted. The reality is that 58 per cent of rape cases which reach court result in a conviction for rape or another offence.

"We want all victims to feel confident that when they come forward and report rapes it will be taken seriously and they will be treated with dignity and respect."

Chris Graying, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "The one thing none of us in politics must do is to talk about this issue in a way that stops genuine victims feeling unable to come forward and lodge a complaint."

But Lisa Longstaff, a spokeswoman for Women Against Rape, said the report was a whitewash.

"The reason that six per cent figure is there is because we have fought for it. We want to know how few reported rapes get to conviction," she said.

She said it reflected the failure of the justice system."

Imo that 6% figure is important. Victims are choosing not to report rapes and when they do CPS are choosing not to take them forward for prosecution because under the current system rape just happens to be so difficult to prove.

What can we do then, government e-petition?

CarrotyO I agree it is an important figure, but we must not casually refer to it as a conviction rate because right away it gives someone who knows anything on the subject an angle with which to argue and deflect from the important issues.

We have to be strong and watertight in our facts because this is a fight we have to win.

I think the point that the conviction rate quoted should statistically be described as an attrition rate is meaningless when it is accepted that the attrition rate is high. And the reporting rates in the first place are low.
I think to quote a conviction rate without the other factors would be more misleading. The attrition rate should be a concern right through the system. The CPS included.

If CPS want women to continue to come forward they should look at the characteristics of the cases successfully prosecuted. I expect they include things rape victims are "supposed" to do. And then perhaps be honest about why a woman with fuck all chance of being considered credible would come forward.

Ah ok WickedLazy I get what you meant now. I wondered why you had done an about-turn from your previous posts

If a man is accused of rape, and can be placed at the scene... can the posters convinced that most if not all mem who are accused of rape are guilty, give an example of the sort of evidence that would persuade you the man was not guilty and did not deserve a lengthy jail sentence ?

See, I believe none exists really.

On the contrary, it seems that the opposite is true. There doesn't seem to be any amount of evidence that the prosecution can produce that is deemed to be enough to convince people that a man is guilty. Injuries, distress, willingness to submit to an invasive medical examination and hand over your underwear, willingness to sit in the witness box and be torn to shreds in the hope of getting justice, for your family and friends to hear intimate details about your body, your behaviour, your distress, your feelings of being violated. None of that comes close to being enough for most women in most rape cases.

So many think that a system that favours male offenders is a 'fair' system, and one that would even the balance even a tiny bit would be 'stacked against men'. Why is perceived unfairness only concerning when men might be held to account?

I'm not telling anyone what to think any more than you are. You're the one that is saying our legal system is not fit for purpose and that you know better than the jurors who sat through the whole trial.

Thank you for the kind words, prosecco and Carroty.

to all of us who this case has brought back bad memories.

If CPS want women to continue to come forward they should look at the characteristics of the cases successfully prosecuted. I expect they include things rape victims are "supposed" to do. And then perhaps be honest about why a woman with fuck all chance of being considered credible would come forward.

Exactly.

Imo that 6% figure is important. Victims are choosing not to report rapes and when they do CPS are choosing not to take them forward for prosecution because under the current system rape just happens to be so difficult to prove.

Absolutely agree.

Police refused to refer my rape case to CPS this week on the basis that my attacker could reasonably assume I consented.

I didn't fight or shout out. Here's a line from what they consider reasonable consent looks like":

" X's account she states that she remained limp and if he had let her go she would have fallen down. In my opinion this is not a clear indication that she had not consented."

So penetrating a passed out, disorientated woman who you have to hold up because she is so limp to do so herself looks amounts to a reasonable belief in consent. In the eyes of the law.

where I'm so sorry. That is awful to read. I feel like I can't be shocked by this stuff anymore, but then I read that.

What the hell can we do about this? We have to do something. This cannot be the way the law goes, that unless you put yourself at more risk by screaming and struggling (which is likely to get you thumped or strangled) then you are presumed to have consented. Or at least not not-consented in a way that the poor man would expect to recognise.

Jesus christ. I really don't know how to process that this is the world we live in.

I believe that although the rugby players may have used a high level of manipulation and peer pressure on the girl they did not physically force her or intimidate her into having sex, and she was consensual.

Manipulation and peer pressure is coercion which is not true consent.

Yet apparently her facebook's full of naughty photo's and video's of herself? When she consents she doesn't generally seem to care who sees what? But now she's shy all of a sudden?

Ridiculous argument. Just because someone shares their own photos and videos on social media doesn't mean they agree to all and sundry taking photos and sharing them. See the tea analogy, it might help you get your head round the idea of consent and what it means.

Jackson's lawyer was guy who defended April jone murderer -, doesn't care how he makes his money. No morals

Well that says it all really doesn't it?

Regardless of whether they believed the case was strong or not they would prosecute and lose rather than not prosecute and have all the rape groups/ women’s rights groups etc hammering them because they did not due to it being to famous rugby players.

That is bollocks.

to everyone sharing their stories on this thread.

What the hell can we do about this? We have to do something. I agree. I'm trying to find if there are campaigns currently to reform the legal system but haven't found anything.