Barbie Kardashian trial **trigger warning rape**

[RocketPanda]

It's a horrific read
https://m.sundayworld.com/crime/courts/prison-officer-tells-court-he-heard-barbie-kardashian-threaten-to-rape-fellow-inmate/a502606113.html

Wow. I guess the jury hadn’t seen previous press coverage of this guy and felt he was being victimised for being trans. Because otherwise it makes no sense, given he admitted to making the threats.

Believe him when he says he's a woman.

Don't believe him when he says he's going to rape someone.

But, but...it's such a progressive country /s

Iirc he had some young female cheerleaders last time.

I can't be certain, but the evaluation cast doubt on Kardashian's sincerity saying that the answers given appeared rehearsed.

I wonder if they were tipped off he was a psycho and they wanted to avoid being connected with him? 99% of children who ended up at the Tavi were rehearsed and that wasn’t something that bothered them generally.

Is this guy due to be released from prison? Does anyone know the length of his original sentence?

that jury should be ashamed of themselves 😡

Do we know if the jury were fully informed of this man’s depraved character and previous convictions?

Someone on X said he's due for release 2026.

I cannot fathom what the fuck is going on. My thoughts with the women he threatened.

I've posted over on Craicnet that I'm not just outraged but genuinely puzzled by the jury's decision, and I'd appreciate if somebody with legal knowledge could explain when a threat to rape or kill is not subject to legal penalty.

Is it because it was physically impossible for BK to carry out the threat? He was moved to a men's prison shortly afterwards.

But what about the fear and distress caused by such horrific and detailed threats, is that not enough for someone to be found guilty of something related to making threats?
And BK is going to be out of jail one of these years, and if I'd been the object of his hateful threats, I'd be very very worried...

I'm always loathe to comment on the outcome of trials because I wasn't in the courtroom and I didn't hear all the evidence - I did jury service myself in two countries, and I am aware of the nuances that don't make it into court reports.
But BK seems to have said yes I said all that and yes I meant it.
The jury would most likely have been fully aware of his history, there's been lots of reports in the media for the past couple of years about his original trial, the successful campaign to get him out of the women's prison etc.

I'm assuming the jury behaved fairly and honourably and acquitted BK for valid reasons. I'm just at a loss to how WTF those reasons could possibly be!

in order to convict the jury would have had to be sure that the defendant made the threat intending the other to believe it will be carried out.

I would assume one of two things happened:

either the jury thought that BK didn't intend the victims to believe they would be killed or raped, likely tied to the fact he is in solitary most of the time and the secure nature of the prison would mean such a threat couldn’t be carried out .

or

they did believe that BK intended them to believe that they would be killed/raped but the victims were so unsympathetic that they decided to acquit anyway

I'm assuming the jury behaved fairly and honourably and acquitted BK for valid reasons. I'm just at a loss to how WTF those reasons could possibly be!

your being generous. I’ve prosecuted an defended many many jury trials. There’s nothing so odd as jurors!

I will add I totally support the jury system, it’s the best option we have but certainly I’ve seen some very surprising results over the years

I'd be interested to know how BK presented himself in court. Presumably nothing like the terrifying clown picture we are all so used to seeing when he is reported in the press.

Yes I'd be interested in seeing this too.

If I remember correctly, the judge instructed the jury to find him not guilty on one of the charges and the jury were free to decide on the other charges themselves.

I don’t know how a man who confesses to thinking about violently raping women, who threatens to violently rape women, and who has attacked more than one woman in the past, is considered to be rational, truthful and not a threat to women and girls.

Can't see it posted here yet but BK testified yesterday and I am baffled how this was a not guilty verdict

https://www.thejournal.ie/barbie-kardashian-3-6524633-Oct2024/
"Under cross examination from prosecution counsel John O’Sullivan, Kardashian admitted threatening to rape McGhee with an object so that the extent of McGhee’s injuries would be that “she would not be able to have children”.
O’Sullivan asked Kardashian “what object” would be used to rape Ms McGhee.
“I wanted to use an electric rod, but that wasn’t available to me. I remember thinking I wanted to use the handle of a sweeping brush or a mop. I wanted to torture her [Ms McGhee] sexually, I wanted to sexually electrocute her genitalia,” Kardashian replied.
When asked why use the word “object” in the rape threat, Kardashian replied: “Because I am a woman, and women use objects, that’s why I said ‘object’.”
She added: “I hate having male genitalia and I would use an object to commit rape. If a woman wants to rape, that’s how I would commit rape.”
When O’Sullivan put it to Kardashian that the trial heard it was only females that the accused had threatened, Kardashian replied: “I have threatened to sexually assault males since these incidents.”
Kardashian agreed with O’Sullivan that she had “snapped” in a fit of rage after rumours had circulated “for months” about her and the showers.
She admitted in court to making a threat to rape McGhee and making threats to “sexually assault” or “molest” Linnane.
“I wanted to punish them for life for making false allegations about me…I wanted revenge”,” Kardashian said.
O’Sullivan asked Kardashian checked if the accused had stated in her direct evidence “for life”, to which Kardashian replied: “Yes, for life”.
O’Sullivan also asked if Kardashian wanted to inflict “life changing injuries” on the two alleged victims to which Kardashian replied: “That’s correct.”
O’Sullivan put it to Kardashian that “you claim to be a woman yourself” but that the accused wanted to make the women suffer sexually.
Kardashian replied: “Yes, I wanted to make them suffer.”
She agreed with O’Sullivan of having wanted to “torture” the two alleged victims and agreed they had “deserved it”.
“Yes, but the electric rod wasn’t available to me. It applied more to Roisin [Linnane] as I hated her more than Tegan,” Kardashian said.
Kardashian, who had told Gardaí that she had been raped and sexually assaulted a number of times as a child, gave evidence that she had wanted to make “a very extreme threat” against Linnane in order “to make her suffer”.
O’Sullivan asked Kardashian “did you intend” Tegan McGhee to believe the rape threat was real, to which Kardashian replied: “Yes, I wanted her to suffer. I felt she wronged me and I wanted revenge.”"

Please tell me at the very least this will give the issues some sunlight in Ireland?

It has always struck me as bizarre that doubts were cast on his claims on his gender identity. The Affirmation only model was well underway in Tavistock at that stage.

How a jury heard that evidence and didn't convict is beyond comprehension to me.
They honestly believe that if the opportunity presented itself, as it did when he seriously assaulted his social worker, that he wouldn't do it?
Being prevented from doing something is very different to not intending to do it.

I don’t think so. The legacy media is behaving as though this is a case of one women threatening to rape other women. And when asked about this man in the past, when he was previously on trial, our Taoiseach and other Ministers/TDs refused to make any proper comments on the matter or they just ignored the journalist asking the questions.

And, given that a very large percentage of the Irish population still don’t know that self-declaration of sex was passed into law, I don’t think anyone who isn’t already following the case will be made aware of the problems that self-declaration is causing.

The media in Ireland has been pretty unanimous in stating that BK was born male but 'identifies' as female, and in a few cases they added that this was formalised with a GRC.

I doubt if there's anybody in Ireland who follows the news to any extent who does not know that BK is male and dangerous, but identifies as female. Female and innocent and a victim of nasty people being beastly to him..🙄

Kardashian (22), of no fixed abode, who it was heard was born a male but now identifies as a female, denies three counts of making threats to kill or cause serious harm to Ms Linnane on dates in April and June 2023. Irish Times

The accused, who the court heard was born male but now identifies as female, has pleaded not guilty to all the charges. RTE.ie

Barbie Kardashian, (22), of no fixed abode who it was heard was born a male but now identifies as a female, has pleaded not guilty before Limerick Circuit Criminal Court to one count of threatening to kill or cause serious harm to, Tegan McGhee, who was an inmate at the prison in February 2023 Breaking News.ie

It's certainly been reported far more than BK was at the time of his conviction.

Back then Gript was the only one.

MarieDeGournay · Yesterday 20:14

Acquitted?? WTF! I can't think why, because he seems to have pretty much admitted saying everything he was accused of saying.

Yes, it's pretty bizarre, isn't it? It puts me in mind of Tan Ikram letting "Sarah Jane" Baker out of prison, saying that punch a TERF was obviously a joke. From a man with a long history of extremely serious violence and sex attacks.

Do you think he's pathetic looking in real life or something? Untheatening in some way, I just don't understand.