LeRouxIsPHat wrote:I'm not interested in piecing together any of the evidence, I'm saying that if anyone states something as a fact then it should actually be accurate.
The bit about the blood matching on knickers and trousers is correct, the views differed if it was menstrual or not, if it was not menstrual then it proves the cut was previous to her going to the after party, you getting where I am and those in court are coming from now, I can't make it any simpler without giving you embargoed information.
Those are accurate facts.
Oldschoolsocks wrote:one thing does not mean the other
For all intents and purposes under criminal law, it is.
Not guilty is not the same as innocent, just like not short is not the same as tall
The purpose of the court case was to see if their legal status with respect to the charges could be changed from innocent to guilty.
The prosecution failed in that attempt. They remain innocent.
You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.
LeRouxIsPHat wrote:I'm not interested in piecing together any of the evidence, I'm saying that if anyone states something as a fact then it should actually be accurate.
The bit about the blood matching on knickers and trousers is correct, the views differed if it was menstrual or not, if it was not menstrual then it proves the cut was previous to her going to the after party, you getting where I am and those in court are coming from now, I can't make it any simpler without giving you embargoed information.
Those are accurate facts.
I'm not sure how you're not getting this. You stated as fact that the blood was menstrual. That's not the case, and it's as simple as that. You can say other things that are true, or you can piece together info to form a narrative, but that doesn't change the fact that what you said is not a conclusive fact. It's what you think is likely to be the case, and that could be very well be correct, but doesn't mean you should state it as fact.
I think we were both in agreement about the list of "facts" relating to the case that was circulating on twitter on the day of the trial being total nonsense and feeding into backlash against the defendants. There were inaccuracies in that list that became true purely because enough people repeated them. What you've done is no different. Provide the full context and/or say "I believe this to be case/in my opinion" and I've no issue with it, but it would really piss me off if even one person read your message and then mentioned to someone that "the blood was menstrual" when that is YOUR fact, not the court's.
The general inaccuracies around this on twitter or people I've spoken to (e.g. people saying Jackson should have been sacked because of the messages but then being unable to say which ones he sent) are a real bug bear of mine. I've had a couple of heated debates about it and it is exceptionally frustrating when their arguments are based on inaccuracies they've read online.
Oldschoolsocks wrote:
Not guilty is not the same as innocent, just like not short is not the same as tall
The purpose of the court case was to see if their legal status with respect to the charges could be changed from innocent to guilty.
The prosecution failed in that attempt. They remain innocent.
No, it was to prove whether they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You don’t seem to understand the distinction - but that’s on you to research or not.
LeRouxIsPHat wrote:I'm not interested in piecing together any of the evidence, I'm saying that if anyone states something as a fact then it should actually be accurate.
The bit about the blood matching on knickers and trousers is correct, the views differed if it was menstrual or not, if it was not menstrual then it proves the cut was previous to her going to the after party, you getting where I am and those in court are coming from now, I can't make it any simpler without giving you embargoed information.
Those are accurate facts.
I'm not sure how you're not getting this. You stated as fact that the blood was menstrual. That's not the case, and it's as simple as that. You can say other things that are true, or you can piece together info to form a narrative, but that doesn't change the fact that what you said is not a conclusive fact. It's what you think is likely to be the case, and that could be very well be correct, but doesn't mean you should state it as fact.
I think we were both in agreement about the list of "facts" relating to the case that was circulating on twitter on the day of the trial being total nonsense and feeding into backlash against the defendants. There were inaccuracies in that list that became true purely because enough people repeated them. What you've done is no different. Provide the full context and/or say "I believe this to be case/in my opinion" and I've no issue with it, but it would really piss me off if even one person read your message and then mentioned to someone that "the blood was menstrual" when that is YOUR fact, not the court's.
The general inaccuracies around this on twitter or people I've spoken to (e.g. people saying Jackson should have been sacked because of the messages but then being unable to say which ones he sent) are a real bug bear of mine. I've had a couple of heated debates about it and it is exceptionally frustrating when their arguments are based on inaccuracies they've read online.
How is what rooster's saying not fact? The complainant said she didn't put her underwear back on after the sexual activity. So how did the blood get there, and match up with the pattern on the trousers, if it wasn't there beforehand?
Oldschoolsocks wrote:
Not guilty is not the same as innocent, just like not short is not the same as tall
The purpose of the court case was to see if their legal status with respect to the charges could be changed from innocent to guilty.
The prosecution failed in that attempt. They remain innocent.
No, it was to prove whether they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You don’t seem to understand the distinction - but that’s on you to research or not.
I think I understand the implication of what you mean, you believe that simply being charged is a green light to assassinate that person's character, forever.
You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.
leinsterforever wrote:
How is what rooster's saying not fact? The complainant said she didn't put her underwear back on after the sexual activity. So how did the blood get there, and match up with the pattern on the trousers, if it wasn't there beforehand?
I've explained very clearly what was inaccurate, not doing it again.
Ok in summary.
The guys have been found innocent (not guilty if you prefer)
They have been sacked and essentially are unemployable in their own country.
Is there anyone out there who still thinks that they haven't been punished enough.
If so what other censure would they deem suitable?
If not what is a reasonable period (if any) of contemplation (exile) for them to serve before they could be employed again in Ireland in their preferred professional capacity.
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall who's the greatest player of them all? It is Drico your majesty.
Some of you like to post and some of us like to read your posts but it is getting ugly.
English is not my first language so I will try my best not to upset some of you clever writers.
After they were found not guilty, most of you were happy with the outcome and told the rest of us to move on.
Well, the IRFU and Ulster Rugby have made their decision so now it is our turn to tell you to move on.
I think I understand the implication of what you mean, you believe that simply being charged is a green light to assassinate that person's character, forever.
Nope, that’s nothing close to what I mean.
I’ve not put words in your mouth I’d appreciate if you’d return the favour
One thing to remember is that if this happened south of the border the names of the charged would not have been made public. This might have had a different impact on their futures.
Their names would have got out through speculation and rumour but not officially.
I think I understand the implication of what you mean, you believe that simply being charged is a green light to assassinate that person's character, forever.
Nope, that’s nothing close to what I mean.
I’ve not put words in your mouth I’d appreciate if you’d return the favour
So then, now that they have been found not guilty, why do you feel the need to state that not guilty is not the same as innocent?
Presumably this is not something you feel the need to come out with after every trial where there is a not guilty verdict.
You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.
rooster wrote:The bit about the blood matching on knickers and trousers is correct, the views differed if it was menstrual or not, if it was not menstrual then it proves the cut was previous to her going to the after party, you getting where I am and those in court are coming from now, I can't make it any simpler without giving you embargoed information.
Those are accurate facts.
I'm not sure how you're not getting this. You stated as fact that the blood was menstrual. That's not the case, and it's as simple as that. You can say other things that are true, or you can piece together info to form a narrative, but that doesn't change the fact that what you said is not a conclusive fact. It's what you think is likely to be the case, and that could be very well be correct, but doesn't mean you should state it as fact.
I think we were both in agreement about the list of "facts" relating to the case that was circulating on twitter on the day of the trial being total nonsense and feeding into backlash against the defendants. There were inaccuracies in that list that became true purely because enough people repeated them. What you've done is no different. Provide the full context and/or say "I believe this to be case/in my opinion" and I've no issue with it, but it would really piss me off if even one person read your message and then mentioned to someone that "the blood was menstrual" when that is YOUR fact, not the court's.
The general inaccuracies around this on twitter or people I've spoken to (e.g. people saying Jackson should have been sacked because of the messages but then being unable to say which ones he sent) are a real bug bear of mine. I've had a couple of heated debates about it and it is exceptionally frustrating when their arguments are based on inaccuracies they've read online.
How is what rooster's saying not fact? The complainant said she didn't put her underwear back on after the sexual activity. So how did the blood get there, and match up with the pattern on the trousers, if it wasn't there beforehand?
Correct Leinsterforever.
It is very simple blood spots on trousers and underware matched.
If blood was not menstrual as doctor said then it had to come from the cut therefore the cut was prior to her trousers and underware coming off, since she clearly said didn't put it back on.
Draw your own conclusions on that !
The defence doctor said the blood may have been menstrual but couldn't see the cut then again she only had a poor video to go on.
LeRouxIsPHat wrote:
You stated as fact that the blood was menstrual. That's not the case, and it's as simple as that.
Rooster, you clearly haven't read my posts properly so I've simplified it for you.
You can draw whatever conclusions you want but it will not change anything about what I've said above. You stated it as fact...it is not a fact, and should not be presented as being so.
I think I understand the implication of what you mean, you believe that simply being charged is a green light to assassinate that person's character, forever.
Nope, that’s nothing close to what I mean.
I’ve not put words in your mouth I’d appreciate if you’d return the favour
So then, now that they have been found not guilty, why do you feel the need to state that not guilty is not the same as innocent?
Presumably this is not something you feel the need to come out with after every trial where there is a not guilty verdict.
Because not guilty is not the same as innocent. They were found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - it’s simply untrue to state that they were found innocent.
Is the question - do I stand outside every courthouse and proclaim that all defendants found not guilty are not innocent? I’m not engaging on that one because that’s a stupid question and doesn’t warrant an answer.
