Eoghan McDermott #2

1
Is being acquitted different in Ireland from being found not guilty? I am just wondering why so many on here don't believe his innocence?
I know asking this sounds like I'm totally believing he is in the right and the other party is in the wrong and that is really not my intention at all. I've tried to rephrase this a few times but I can't get my words correct so I'm aware my tone sounds very pro EmcD and to be honest I really don't have an opinion as I didn't really know who he was before the trial and this page and I didn't follow the trial.
I'm just interested in the aftermath of this for both really I think.
 
Clarision said:
Is being acquitted different in Ireland from being found not guilty? I am just wondering why so many on here don't believe his innocence?
I know asking this sounds like I'm totally believing he is in the right and the other party is in the wrong and that is really not my intention at all. I've tried to rephrase this a few times but I can't get my words correct so I'm aware my tone sounds very pro EmcD and to be honest I really don't have an opinion as I didn't really know who he was before the trial and this page and I didn't follow the trial.
I'm just interested in the aftermath of this for both really I think.
Click to expand...
Basically a verdict of not guilty is the jury saying that the victim/plaintiff couldnt prove beyond reasonable doubt that this has happened. The burden of proof/evidence is on the victim/plaintiff and as its historical its very hard to have evidence.

Any one with better legal knowledge than me feel free to add or amend anything above - i'm not a legal expert by any stretch, but thats my understanding.
 
Mooordgirl said:
Basically a verdict of not guilty is the jury saying that the victim/plaintiff couldnt prove beyond reasonable doubt that this has happened. The burden of proof/evidence is on the victim/plaintiff and as its historical its very hard to have evidence.

Any one with better legal knowledge than me feel free to add or amend anything above - i'm not a legal expert by any stretch, but thats my understanding.
Click to expand...
Ah I see, Thank you. It really is a huge responsibility to sit on a jury isn't it. I'm not sure how a conviction is ever brought without a confession or physical evidence it would never stand surely,
The legal world is fascinating.
 
Clarision said:
Ah I see, Thank you. It really is a huge responsibility to sit on a jury isn't it. I'm not sure how a conviction is ever brought without a confession or physical evidence it would never stand surely,
The legal world is fascinating.
Click to expand...

Scotland has a "not proven" option, but we don't. Instead we have in this case a situation where we can say, we can't prove that you did anything illegal, but we know you did something really sleazy and wrong. And you'll never work again, you gowl.
 
Goujon said:
To answer the question accurately. Legally he has been found innocent. Its the same outcome as if the case were never brought.

However I think a lot of us would recognise a difference between whats legally guilty and whats morally right and wrong
Click to expand...
Legally he has been found not guilty, that does not equal Innocent. The courts can find you guilty or not guilty, never innocent.
 
He was always under the presumption of innocence and it was up to the accused to “prove” his guilt. This didn’t happen so he was found not guilty of the charges. There is no verdict where someone is found innocent. You are always considered innocent until proven otherwise. However as we live in such a small country he is tarnished now regardless. Even if all was legally above board.. Most people still rightly heave at the thoughts of a near 30 year old man having it off with a 17 year old, who can technically consent- but is still a child in the eyes of the law.
 
MaryJones1 said:
But did she change her mind about the consent or how did this come about?
Could I go to Guards about a former boyfriend who was older than me and say we were in a relationship when I was underage and then he will be arrested? Sorry i genuinely don't understand
Click to expand...
If you had a relationship when you were under age, you can't legally consent to sex. It's not about whether she changed her mind or not. If she was underage, it's Statutory Rape.
 
That's correct, it's not about whether the alleged victim wants a prosecution to occur. Once the guards and the DPP think there is a case there for defilement, or whatever it is called, they can proceed with a prosecution. Now if the victim really doesn't want a prosecution to take place, they could decide not to testify, in which case the prosecution would be most likely doomed to fail due to lack of evidence.
 
Anyone have the tea on this ?! I thought himself and Ciara were still on air
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4114.jpeg
    IMG_4114.jpeg
    84 KB · Views: 96
No they haven’t been on in at least three years. Was wondering what happened to them. She still covers on radio 1. It doesn’t say if it was him that was sexually harassed or if he witnessed someone else
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top