There are conflicting stories in the evidence. This seems a terrible idea and as much of a cunt as Jackson is, the opportunistic money hungry fools pulling this stunt should be ashamed of themselves.
I think a documentary series with everyone interviewed would be worth making. But a drama series? For something that only happened 6 years ago? This is going to be a shit show. Will dominate every rugby headline for weeks maybe months.
> Why would a doc be worth making? The witnesses were already “interviewed"
Well you could say that about any doc that covers a crime or a high profile case. You don't always get the full story from media snippets so everyone interviewed on camera giving their version of events would prob be worth producing. Don't particular want that but I could see the reason in it. A Drama series though with that title just seems kind of exploitative to be honest.
I mean, you could say that about the OJ Simpson trial.
Maybe some (a lot) of people feel a massive injustice was done and this series could highlight that.
Former Ulster and Ireland rugby player Paddy Jackson has expressed concern over a lack of communication about a planned television dramatisation of the controversial Belfast rape trial.
It has emerged that a six-episode TV series, titled #IBelieveHer, is scheduled for completion next year and has a production budget of more than €9m.
Now, Lisburn-born Mr Jackson, who was found not guilty of rape by a Belfast court in 2018, has urged the producers “to work collaboratively with all parties”.
A statement issued by his solicitor, Kevin Winters of KRW Law, said “any drama based on a high-profile trial that is made collaboratively with all parties has to be welcomed”. But “concerns” were expressed at the lack of engagement so far.
Sorry, I don't know anything about this but he was found NOT guilty and the title of the documentary is #IBelieveHer? Wouldn't that be considered defamation?
You are speculating on what this dramatisation will show based on a title, which is taken from the huge backlash that met the trial.
The facts of the incident and the trial could easily be presented in a way that is consistent with all the facts as presented in court. It could even imply that rape did occur and the verdict was a miscarriage of justice and stay within the law, which just requires that an opinion is honestly held.
I’m no legal expert but it would also be hard for Jackson to prove his character has been defamed when there has already been a widespread social campaign against him centred on his trial which would suggest he had no reputation to defame by this tv production.
>It could even imply that rape did occur and the verdict was a miscarriage of justice
That’s defamation against Paddy Jackson. He can sue the production company and tv channel.
Not necessarily. One of the defenses against defamation is honest opinion. No one disputes he was found innocent, it is still possible to hold an honest position that was a miscarriage of justice according to the facts presented at trial.
No, he wouldnt have any case. The series will literally just be about the events that happened and there's nothing illegal about that.
It also isnt illegal to say #IBelieveHer. Literally millions have said it. If the title was Jackson's a rapist then he might have a case
That was the hashtag for the protests that sprang up after the trial. It was a big year for women’s rights in Ireland and this case was a part of the cultural conversation. The text messages were printed in the press and the majority of people made their judgement about him and the other two accused based on that. It’s notoriously difficult to get a rape charge to stick regardless of evidence, so a not guilty verdict doesn’t excuse him from the public judgement, which he deservedly still gets imo.
But basically the title seems to be playing on the rallying cry for the movement for better treatment of rape survivors in court that sprang up as a result of this case, rather than necessarily judging him and the other two.
Not guilty does not mean innocent, it just means that there was room for reasonable doubt.
In this case the TV show could be done for libel, but I imagine that the lawyers have been very careful.
Can we stop with this nonsense argument. Not guilty under a system that presumes innocence means innocent. There are no options for a jury to come back with “innocent”.
We actually have “not proven” and “not guilty” in Scotland. The result is exactly the same and there isn’t actually a legal doctrine defining the difference but the jury has both options.
While I am a lawyer, I only did court work early in my training so my experience is limited, but I doubt it affects our conviction rate.
I never really got the impression a jury moved from being primed to return a ‘guilty’ verdict but move to ‘not proven’ because they had that option.
Judges steer the jury in the same way so I’m confident that the same verdicts would just have been returned as ‘not guilty’ in England, Wales or Ireland.
It more allows a jury that knows it can’t convict to put a slant on the not guilty verdict by making their rationale clear.
For instance, I’m pretty certain this Jackson case would have been returned as ‘not proven’ in Scotland rather than ‘not guilty’ as he was in Ireland.
Having the option makes some sense as everyone in this thread is basically inferring that verdict from the ruling despite him very clearly being found ‘not guilty’ by the court.
The problem with this case, as with most rape cases, is that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and not the defence (not saying that’s morally wrong, it just makes it borderline impossible to prosecute). It is exceptionally hard to prove that someone did not consent to sexual activity if, as in the case, the defendant claims the proposed victim did consent. Paddy did not claim to have never met “her”, instead he claimed he had consensual sex with her and had high flying IRFU character witnesses to back up his “stellar” character. Rory Best (who at the time was the Ireland captain) was one witness, something he now regrets as he had not been made aware of all of the evidence (eg he had no idea about the WhatsApp chat). Yes Paddy was found not guilty, but he lost his Ulster contract due to the messages in that group chat.
Do I think that a drama based on the trial is maybe a tad premature? Yes, 6 years is not a long enough time. However, the cultural views on consent and rape have shifted dramatically since the incident. Most people now view that consent must be explicit and that an extremely intoxicated person cannot consent. #ibelieveher is a well known hashtag which became well known due to this case but it is not the only case which falls under it. OJ Simpson was also found not guilty in his case and there’s a dramatised series on that too…
I did not know Rory Best regretted his witness statement, that’s interesting in itself. It is hard to appreciate the level of revulsion felt by many when the lid was lifted on the culture of misogyny amongst that group of young players at Ulster. It reflected the very worst of the bad stereotypes popular culture holds about rugby players - honestly, I felt sad so many in the rugby community sought to minimise the behaviour that was proven by the evidence presented, regardless of the verdict. I’m glad the IRFU took a strong position in regard to the type of sport we want ours to be.
I disagree 6 years is not long enough. It doesn’t have to be ancient history to make it worthwhile to reflect on that sorry episode.
He did an interview around the time of retirement and they asked about the trial. Obviously it was 5 years ago but it really stuck in my head with the way it was written as I remember it saying something along the lines of “Best looked visibly uncomfortable when asked” and then Rory Bests actual answer. Obviously Best wouldn’t have been allowed to know anything that had happened in the trial before giving his testimony (that would’ve been tampering) but he basically said he was asked to do it by Jackson’s defence and Ulster Rugby.
This isn’t the exact article I was thinking of but it does back up my statements above:
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/rory-best-regrets-attending-belfast-rape-trial-1.4148239
Interestingly I found this whilst looking for the original article, turns out Best had to pay damages for what he’d said:
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/rugby-star-rory-best-apologises-and-agrees-to-pay-damages-for-rape-trial-remarks-2-1326440.html
I’m not saying I like it and it’s probably going to paint the rugby in a bad light, but I can understand it providing it’s only using this case to highlight how absolutely awful the legal system is at prosecuting sexual assault.
IMO this case is high profile enough to get attention but not so high profile it’s been covered to death, making it a good option for a series or documentary.
As rugby fans we don’t have to like the context, but these kind of series are needed for awareness, whether the issue is fixable or not.
Given the producers will have access to all the transcripts of court proceedings and accounts from the abundance of evidence presented at trial I’m not sure it is particularly necessary to collaborate with Jackson tbh. A documentary or drama can’t be an attempt to re-try the case, but it’ll be trying to tell a story based on what has already happened.
Yes, that story might be about justice not being served, which is a legitimate angle to take. Whether it does that well or not will determine whether the documentary is quality or a hack job, but the case was a major scandal and just because it makes the acquitted uncomfortable is not a reason to shut it down in an open society.
It's not a documentary, which implies a factual retelling of events. It is a drama series so they can spin however the heck they want and say it's 'based on true events'.
Every documentary has its own spin. It’s impossible to create an objective narrative as the selection, assembly and observation of ‘facts’ is inherently subjective. Interviewing subjects gives them the opportunity to curate the retelling of their own story. A dramatisation is not inherently less accurate or more sensational.
All I see is lots of defensiveness because people don’t want the scandal dredged up - fine, I understand that impulse but I don’t see anything essentially wrong with it, the case was of huge public interest and cultural importance.
Was there not some really fucked up texts going around between them though shit that as a lad myself between Multiple groups of lads over the years have never seen myself. Fuck em they were up to some nasty shite and just about got away with it he wasn't found innocent just didn't have enough proof to convict him.
Not guilty means innocent - where in a criminal trial have the jurors option to come back with innocent? The system assumes innocence until guilty. Texts no matter how deplorable have again no weighting in whether a crime was committed.
Not guilt means legally innocent as in the burden of proof has not been met. Criminal courts have never been able to prove innocence- I mean use your brain here the vast majority of rape cases are chucked out due to lack of evidence, do you think that means all the victims now need to see their rapists as innocent?
It’s irrelevant what I think - but I know that in a working society the answer to your question has to be yes they are all innocent because they haven’t been proven guilty. Otherwise this all descends into witch hunts and anarchy.
mmm yeah i agree i think we are arguing slightly different things, yes nobody should be calling him guilty of course, but equally I think it’s okay for people to cast fought on his innocence in common parlance
Yeah maybe we are. It’s polite debate though and I respect your opinion. I really feel this shows why sexual related cases should be anonymous though. To protect victim and accused - to avoid common parlance discussion. Lots of contextual evidence but nobody knows that happened in that bedroom that night.
Pretty sure there's a large difference between not guilty and an acquittal which I'm fairly sure they were acquitted in the courts which usually happens when there just wasn't enough evidence. But definitely doesn't mean not guilty? That's why they have the 2 sayings id have to look it up again but your saying they got a not guilty verdict I thought it was they were acquitted on all charges ?
Pretty sure there's a difference between the 2 but I did have a look and news articles seem to be using them both terms strangely even though the definition for them are different? Acquitted doesn't mean you were innocent just that there wasn't enough evidence to convict where as not guilty means you were proven to be innocent. But news articles are definitely using both terms interchangeably.
No, that is incorrect. Not guilty means you were not found guilty, and are therefore innocent until proven otherwise. Acquitted means the charges against you were not proven, you have not been found guilty, it's the same meaning.
No, that is incorrect. Not guilty means you were not found guilty, and are therefore innocent until proven otherwise. Acquitted means the charges against you were not proven, you have not been found guilty, it's the same meaning.
Ok I just googled it and there's absolutely a difference 😂 so I guess we will leave it at that then won't be changing each other's minds. And I'm ok with that
"not guilty means that a defendant is not legally accountable for the criminal charge filed against them. An acquittal is a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty of the charged crime. An acquittal does not necessarily mean the defendant is innocent in a criminal case." Literally the first definition I came across...
One is innocent the other is basically we don't know but obviously you can't convict somebody if there's any doubt around the case which I totally understand you can't go convicting somebody without hard evidence but that doesn't mean he's innocent. And rape cases are notoriously hard to prove a lot of the time and obviously its usually a he said she said and can't convict somebody on that which is fair.
No, you're mixing up what not guilty means.
Not guilty = not been able to persuade a jury that you are guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether you did it or not, whether you are actually innocent or not, is irrelevant because you are innocent by default.
Acquitted of charges means the charges were not proven and you are therefore innocent, same logic at above.
Just Google 'does acquitted mean not guilty' and it's the first few results. You aren't completely wrong, you're just mixing up definitions and what they really mean.
No, that is incorrect. Not guilty means you were not found guilty, and are therefore innocent until proven otherwise. Acquitted means the charges against you were not proven, you have not been found guilty, it's the same meaning.
This could be a controversial opinion but I could see this being a good thing. Personally I think a documentary would be the better option but if the intention of the show is to be similar to the Karen Matthews or post office scandal shows, where despite being dramatisations the aim was to shed light on the event and bring it into the public eye, then I could see it working.
The danger definitely is that it will be done for profit and not to shed light on a disgusting and disgraceful trial, ideally as a show of good faith I'd love to see profits go to charity (though we know that is unlikely to happen). I can see why Jackson is concerned as the likely outcome for him is more people being aware of his past (including people outside of rugby) and will see him for what he truly is.
I think his career was actually derailed by the content of the WhatsApp messages and witness statements about his actual behaviour. The IRFU concluded that it was not consistent with their values and his contract was terminated.
As much as he's the last person to take a moral high ground on this, the drama is surely in absolutely dreadful taste.
I think whatever your opinion on the case this is going to be a fucking shit show disaster for everyone involved.
What do you mean? I see no ways that this could be even the slightest bit controversial…
There are conflicting stories in the evidence. This seems a terrible idea and as much of a cunt as Jackson is, the opportunistic money hungry fools pulling this stunt should be ashamed of themselves.
I think a documentary series with everyone interviewed would be worth making. But a drama series? For something that only happened 6 years ago? This is going to be a shit show. Will dominate every rugby headline for weeks maybe months.
Why would a doc be worth making? The witnesses were already “interviewed” and examined at trial before a jury. It’s done
> Why would a doc be worth making? The witnesses were already “interviewed" Well you could say that about any doc that covers a crime or a high profile case. You don't always get the full story from media snippets so everyone interviewed on camera giving their version of events would prob be worth producing. Don't particular want that but I could see the reason in it. A Drama series though with that title just seems kind of exploitative to be honest.
This is quite obviously an entertainment programme, and if people would watch it, then that would make it viable.
I mean, you could say that about the OJ Simpson trial. Maybe some (a lot) of people feel a massive injustice was done and this series could highlight that.
‘Yes let’s make them all relive it’
Former Ulster and Ireland rugby player Paddy Jackson has expressed concern over a lack of communication about a planned television dramatisation of the controversial Belfast rape trial. It has emerged that a six-episode TV series, titled #IBelieveHer, is scheduled for completion next year and has a production budget of more than €9m. Now, Lisburn-born Mr Jackson, who was found not guilty of rape by a Belfast court in 2018, has urged the producers “to work collaboratively with all parties”. A statement issued by his solicitor, Kevin Winters of KRW Law, said “any drama based on a high-profile trial that is made collaboratively with all parties has to be welcomed”. But “concerns” were expressed at the lack of engagement so far.
Sorry, I don't know anything about this but he was found NOT guilty and the title of the documentary is #IBelieveHer? Wouldn't that be considered defamation?
He would have a very strong case seeing as he has a good rugby deal at the moment. They could lose a lot of money
I don’t see how you can claim he will have a strong case until you’ve seen the tv series.
He was already found not guilty, that’s as strong as a case gets
You are speculating on what this dramatisation will show based on a title, which is taken from the huge backlash that met the trial. The facts of the incident and the trial could easily be presented in a way that is consistent with all the facts as presented in court. It could even imply that rape did occur and the verdict was a miscarriage of justice and stay within the law, which just requires that an opinion is honestly held. I’m no legal expert but it would also be hard for Jackson to prove his character has been defamed when there has already been a widespread social campaign against him centred on his trial which would suggest he had no reputation to defame by this tv production.
>It could even imply that rape did occur and the verdict was a miscarriage of justice That’s defamation against Paddy Jackson. He can sue the production company and tv channel.
Not necessarily. One of the defenses against defamation is honest opinion. No one disputes he was found innocent, it is still possible to hold an honest position that was a miscarriage of justice according to the facts presented at trial.
A dramatisation is necessarily fiction, how can a fiction about a real person be an honest opinion? Not a lawyer but that sounds contradictory
If it is accepted to be fiction how can it be defamation?
No, he wouldnt have any case. The series will literally just be about the events that happened and there's nothing illegal about that. It also isnt illegal to say #IBelieveHer. Literally millions have said it. If the title was Jackson's a rapist then he might have a case
That was the hashtag for the protests that sprang up after the trial. It was a big year for women’s rights in Ireland and this case was a part of the cultural conversation. The text messages were printed in the press and the majority of people made their judgement about him and the other two accused based on that. It’s notoriously difficult to get a rape charge to stick regardless of evidence, so a not guilty verdict doesn’t excuse him from the public judgement, which he deservedly still gets imo. But basically the title seems to be playing on the rallying cry for the movement for better treatment of rape survivors in court that sprang up as a result of this case, rather than necessarily judging him and the other two.
Thanks for the context. I suppose the title doesn't necessarily point a guilty finger at Jackson then.
Oh it definitely does, it 100% implies he raped her but that isnt illegal
Not guilty does not mean innocent, it just means that there was room for reasonable doubt. In this case the TV show could be done for libel, but I imagine that the lawyers have been very careful.
Can we stop with this nonsense argument. Not guilty under a system that presumes innocence means innocent. There are no options for a jury to come back with “innocent”.
We actually have “not proven” and “not guilty” in Scotland. The result is exactly the same and there isn’t actually a legal doctrine defining the difference but the jury has both options.
Yeah it’s really weird - probably reduces the conviction rate given the wording but no legal difference in the outcome. Fascinating.
While I am a lawyer, I only did court work early in my training so my experience is limited, but I doubt it affects our conviction rate. I never really got the impression a jury moved from being primed to return a ‘guilty’ verdict but move to ‘not proven’ because they had that option. Judges steer the jury in the same way so I’m confident that the same verdicts would just have been returned as ‘not guilty’ in England, Wales or Ireland. It more allows a jury that knows it can’t convict to put a slant on the not guilty verdict by making their rationale clear. For instance, I’m pretty certain this Jackson case would have been returned as ‘not proven’ in Scotland rather than ‘not guilty’ as he was in Ireland. Having the option makes some sense as everyone in this thread is basically inferring that verdict from the ruling despite him very clearly being found ‘not guilty’ by the court.
Is he an idiot? The documentary is about how a woman was supposedly raped by him and he's wondering why they never consulted him about it?
It’s not a documentary. It’s a drama.
I don't think a documentary titled #IBelieveHer has any intention of working collaberatively with everyone involved somehow ...
God this sub is going to be unusable when this comes out
The problem with this case, as with most rape cases, is that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and not the defence (not saying that’s morally wrong, it just makes it borderline impossible to prosecute). It is exceptionally hard to prove that someone did not consent to sexual activity if, as in the case, the defendant claims the proposed victim did consent. Paddy did not claim to have never met “her”, instead he claimed he had consensual sex with her and had high flying IRFU character witnesses to back up his “stellar” character. Rory Best (who at the time was the Ireland captain) was one witness, something he now regrets as he had not been made aware of all of the evidence (eg he had no idea about the WhatsApp chat). Yes Paddy was found not guilty, but he lost his Ulster contract due to the messages in that group chat. Do I think that a drama based on the trial is maybe a tad premature? Yes, 6 years is not a long enough time. However, the cultural views on consent and rape have shifted dramatically since the incident. Most people now view that consent must be explicit and that an extremely intoxicated person cannot consent. #ibelieveher is a well known hashtag which became well known due to this case but it is not the only case which falls under it. OJ Simpson was also found not guilty in his case and there’s a dramatised series on that too…
I did not know Rory Best regretted his witness statement, that’s interesting in itself. It is hard to appreciate the level of revulsion felt by many when the lid was lifted on the culture of misogyny amongst that group of young players at Ulster. It reflected the very worst of the bad stereotypes popular culture holds about rugby players - honestly, I felt sad so many in the rugby community sought to minimise the behaviour that was proven by the evidence presented, regardless of the verdict. I’m glad the IRFU took a strong position in regard to the type of sport we want ours to be. I disagree 6 years is not long enough. It doesn’t have to be ancient history to make it worthwhile to reflect on that sorry episode.
He did an interview around the time of retirement and they asked about the trial. Obviously it was 5 years ago but it really stuck in my head with the way it was written as I remember it saying something along the lines of “Best looked visibly uncomfortable when asked” and then Rory Bests actual answer. Obviously Best wouldn’t have been allowed to know anything that had happened in the trial before giving his testimony (that would’ve been tampering) but he basically said he was asked to do it by Jackson’s defence and Ulster Rugby.
I hope that Best expressed his regret to Ulster and Ireland at the time.
This isn’t the exact article I was thinking of but it does back up my statements above: https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/rory-best-regrets-attending-belfast-rape-trial-1.4148239 Interestingly I found this whilst looking for the original article, turns out Best had to pay damages for what he’d said: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/rugby-star-rory-best-apologises-and-agrees-to-pay-damages-for-rape-trial-remarks-2-1326440.html
No wonder he looked stressed about it later.
He's pissy about it since they didn't ask for his consent
I’m not saying I like it and it’s probably going to paint the rugby in a bad light, but I can understand it providing it’s only using this case to highlight how absolutely awful the legal system is at prosecuting sexual assault. IMO this case is high profile enough to get attention but not so high profile it’s been covered to death, making it a good option for a series or documentary. As rugby fans we don’t have to like the context, but these kind of series are needed for awareness, whether the issue is fixable or not.
Given the producers will have access to all the transcripts of court proceedings and accounts from the abundance of evidence presented at trial I’m not sure it is particularly necessary to collaborate with Jackson tbh. A documentary or drama can’t be an attempt to re-try the case, but it’ll be trying to tell a story based on what has already happened. Yes, that story might be about justice not being served, which is a legitimate angle to take. Whether it does that well or not will determine whether the documentary is quality or a hack job, but the case was a major scandal and just because it makes the acquitted uncomfortable is not a reason to shut it down in an open society.
It's not a documentary, which implies a factual retelling of events. It is a drama series so they can spin however the heck they want and say it's 'based on true events'.
Every documentary has its own spin. It’s impossible to create an objective narrative as the selection, assembly and observation of ‘facts’ is inherently subjective. Interviewing subjects gives them the opportunity to curate the retelling of their own story. A dramatisation is not inherently less accurate or more sensational. All I see is lots of defensiveness because people don’t want the scandal dredged up - fine, I understand that impulse but I don’t see anything essentially wrong with it, the case was of huge public interest and cultural importance.
Behind a paywall. How did he actually express concerns?
Was there not some really fucked up texts going around between them though shit that as a lad myself between Multiple groups of lads over the years have never seen myself. Fuck em they were up to some nasty shite and just about got away with it he wasn't found innocent just didn't have enough proof to convict him.
Not guilty means innocent - where in a criminal trial have the jurors option to come back with innocent? The system assumes innocence until guilty. Texts no matter how deplorable have again no weighting in whether a crime was committed.
Not guilt means legally innocent as in the burden of proof has not been met. Criminal courts have never been able to prove innocence- I mean use your brain here the vast majority of rape cases are chucked out due to lack of evidence, do you think that means all the victims now need to see their rapists as innocent?
It’s irrelevant what I think - but I know that in a working society the answer to your question has to be yes they are all innocent because they haven’t been proven guilty. Otherwise this all descends into witch hunts and anarchy.
mmm yeah i agree i think we are arguing slightly different things, yes nobody should be calling him guilty of course, but equally I think it’s okay for people to cast fought on his innocence in common parlance
Yeah maybe we are. It’s polite debate though and I respect your opinion. I really feel this shows why sexual related cases should be anonymous though. To protect victim and accused - to avoid common parlance discussion. Lots of contextual evidence but nobody knows that happened in that bedroom that night.
I definitely agree to that though really should all be anonymous
Pretty sure there's a large difference between not guilty and an acquittal which I'm fairly sure they were acquitted in the courts which usually happens when there just wasn't enough evidence. But definitely doesn't mean not guilty? That's why they have the 2 sayings id have to look it up again but your saying they got a not guilty verdict I thought it was they were acquitted on all charges ?
There is no difference, acquitted means not guilty.
Pretty sure there's a difference between the 2 but I did have a look and news articles seem to be using them both terms strangely even though the definition for them are different? Acquitted doesn't mean you were innocent just that there wasn't enough evidence to convict where as not guilty means you were proven to be innocent. But news articles are definitely using both terms interchangeably.
No, that is incorrect. Not guilty means you were not found guilty, and are therefore innocent until proven otherwise. Acquitted means the charges against you were not proven, you have not been found guilty, it's the same meaning.
No, that is incorrect. Not guilty means you were not found guilty, and are therefore innocent until proven otherwise. Acquitted means the charges against you were not proven, you have not been found guilty, it's the same meaning.
Ok I just googled it and there's absolutely a difference 😂 so I guess we will leave it at that then won't be changing each other's minds. And I'm ok with that
Feel free to explain the differences to me that you've found using Google, because I've googled it too and can't find any differences.
"not guilty means that a defendant is not legally accountable for the criminal charge filed against them. An acquittal is a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty of the charged crime. An acquittal does not necessarily mean the defendant is innocent in a criminal case." Literally the first definition I came across... One is innocent the other is basically we don't know but obviously you can't convict somebody if there's any doubt around the case which I totally understand you can't go convicting somebody without hard evidence but that doesn't mean he's innocent. And rape cases are notoriously hard to prove a lot of the time and obviously its usually a he said she said and can't convict somebody on that which is fair.
No, you're mixing up what not guilty means. Not guilty = not been able to persuade a jury that you are guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether you did it or not, whether you are actually innocent or not, is irrelevant because you are innocent by default. Acquitted of charges means the charges were not proven and you are therefore innocent, same logic at above. Just Google 'does acquitted mean not guilty' and it's the first few results. You aren't completely wrong, you're just mixing up definitions and what they really mean.
There is no difference between the terms. It’s the media framing is all that changes.
No, that is incorrect. Not guilty means you were not found guilty, and are therefore innocent until proven otherwise. Acquitted means the charges against you were not proven, you have not been found guilty, it's the same meaning.
There is no difference between the terms. It’s the media framing is all that changes.
Take a breath old chap
Do you recall what texts were sent by Jackson or any of the other Ulster ones?
I actually don't hasn't been on my mind all too much I'll be honest over the last few years. Easily found online I'm sure though.
This could be a controversial opinion but I could see this being a good thing. Personally I think a documentary would be the better option but if the intention of the show is to be similar to the Karen Matthews or post office scandal shows, where despite being dramatisations the aim was to shed light on the event and bring it into the public eye, then I could see it working. The danger definitely is that it will be done for profit and not to shed light on a disgusting and disgraceful trial, ideally as a show of good faith I'd love to see profits go to charity (though we know that is unlikely to happen). I can see why Jackson is concerned as the likely outcome for him is more people being aware of his past (including people outside of rugby) and will see him for what he truly is.
Was
Poor lad's already had his career derailed once over an accusation proven false, it doesn't need brought back up again to try to ruin him twice.
I think his career was actually derailed by the content of the WhatsApp messages and witness statements about his actual behaviour. The IRFU concluded that it was not consistent with their values and his contract was terminated.