The ulster rugby trial

Started by caprea, February 01, 2018, 11:45:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Itchy

Quote from: longballin on February 03, 2018, 10:08:02 AM
Am I missing something but whats the accusation that she went out to meet celebrities?  Loads of people like Fearon do thst hanging around looking their pic took with celebrities etc. Whether she wanted to meet them or not.. so?

The implication they are trying to make is she is a dumb bimbo who went out desperate to meet and have sex with celebrities. It questions her character.

I think it is shocking that the Ireland captain would appear in court to support this but in some ways im not surprised. The rugby snobs think they are a law unto themselves after all.

seafoid

Quote from: David McKeown on February 03, 2018, 12:20:16 PM
It's truly amazing the insight that people seem to be able to gather about the trial based on reading a three paragraph report on two or three questions asked or answers given over the course of a days questioning. The simple fact is that unless you've been at the trial, been able to hear the evidence it's impossible to know the strength of any evidence given so far. I've run cases which I've subsequently read about in the press or seen on TV which have been unrecognisable to me.

Personally I won't ever be making a determination of the guilt or innocence of these or any other defendants unless I've had an opportunity to consider all the evidence. I know plenty will, but come the end of this trial all I will know is what the Jury have decided and I'll take it from there.
That's how your brain works.  Other people can form opinions.

It looks like she was genuinely afraid of the fact the lads were famous rugby players. A rape trial is extremely stressful. She would have to be sure of herself.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

Keyser soze

Quote from: seafoid on February 03, 2018, 03:57:09 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 03, 2018, 12:20:16 PM
It's truly amazing the insight that people seem to be able to gather about the trial based on reading a three paragraph report on two or three questions asked or answers given over the course of a days questioning. The simple fact is that unless you've been at the trial, been able to hear the evidence it's impossible to know the strength of any evidence given so far. I've run cases which I've subsequently read about in the press or seen on TV which have been unrecognisable to me.

Personally I won't ever be making a determination of the guilt or innocence of these or any other defendants unless I've had an opportunity to consider all the evidence. I know plenty will, but come the end of this trial all I will know is what the Jury have decided and I'll take it from there.
That's how your brain works.  Other people can form opinions don't have a brain

It looks like she was genuinely afraid of the fact the lads were famous rugby players. A rape trial is extremely stressful. She would have to be sure of herself.

Fixed that for ye.

Orior

Quote from: David McKeown on February 03, 2018, 12:20:16 PM
It's truly amazing the insight that people seem to be able to gather about the trial based on reading a three paragraph report on two or three questions asked or answers given over the course of a days questioning. The simple fact is that unless you've been at the trial, been able to hear the evidence it's impossible to know the strength of any evidence given so far. I've run cases which I've subsequently read about in the press or seen on TV which have been unrecognisable to me.

Personally I won't ever be making a determination of the guilt or innocence of these or any other defendants unless I've had an opportunity to consider all the evidence. I know plenty will, but come the end of this trial all I will know is what the Jury have decided and I'll take it from there.

Fair enough. Yes, a lot of us are judging on the information to date which is wrong.

Why does this case have all the evidence in public? Are all rape case information in the public domain like this one?
Cover me in chocolate and feed me to the lesbians

nrico2006

I find it unfaur that the defendant's are named. Their names will be tarred irrelevant of the outcome. Surely though, if they are innocent, they will play again? Why would they not? As for believing that any claimant wouldn't put herself and her family through this if it wasn't true, well there have been enough cases where women invented stories for whatever warped reason they had, innocent until proven guilty though.
'To the extreme I rock a mic like a vandal, light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle.'

David McKeown

The starting principle is that open justice is necessary in a civilised society. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. So as a general rule anything said or done in an open public court such as a crown court can be repeated. There are certain exceptions to this such as for example in this case nothing can be published that would lead either directly or indirectly to the complainant being identified.

Also I think the point I was trying to make is that we don't have all the evidence in public, we have highly condensed versions of what was said in court. Hours of speeches or question summarised down into a few passages and not always summarised well.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Owen Brannigan

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 03, 2018, 10:12:50 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 03, 2018, 10:02:02 AM
The lady is pretty sharp. Be interesting to see if the boys have the smarts.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/it-was-like-i-wasnt-there-court-hears-police-tape-of-alleged-rugby-rape-victim-36562922.html

When she said she could not remember parts of her night out in the club, the lawyer asked her: "Do you typically forget things when you have been drinking?"

She responded: "I don't remember every single moment of a night out. Clubs are busy places.

"You don't remember blow-by-blow exactly what you did.

"When you go for a night out you are not expecting to be in court detailing every second of it."

Pretty sharp but also well coached.

This is a real Golden Goose. Are for the PPS. Some of the stuff floating about 'off the record' is shocking. There are real difficulties for the prosecution but why would a young girl put hers of through this amount of personal scrutiny if there was nothing in it. Also despite what people might think the majority, and I mean vast majority, of cases that go to trial are on the basis of a very strong chance of proving guilt. There are 'political' cases taken and I do believe there is an element of that here but reading behind the headlines and the glib commentary there is a real case here and I believe that the defendants are genuinely risking time in jail. There will be twists and turns but some of the evidence so far is very damning.

The PPS must be fairly certain on proceeding with a case that there is at least 50% chance of a conviction and in addition to the evidence PPS can present to a jury is the calculation of how the witness will come across to the jury, how well will they stand up to a defence barrister who must not appear to be beating them down and how clear and articulate do they come across to the jury.


Owen Brannigan

It is very interesting how the defendants have brought their side together under a single barrister.  There has been no dividing them despite the difference in the charges against them both in nature and severity.

Also, for N.Ireland, it is notable that the defence barrister is Brendan Kelly QC, Jackson's solicitor is Kevin Winters and Joe Rice is Olding's solicitor.

David McKeown

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 03, 2018, 09:26:41 PM
It is very interesting how the defendants have brought their side together under a single barrister.  There has been no dividing them despite the difference in the charges against them both in nature and severity.

Also, for N.Ireland, it is notable that the defence barrister is Brendan Kelly QC, Jackson's solicitor is Kevin Winters and Joe Rice is Olding's solicitor.

I was of the understanding there were at least three defence QC's. There's certainly at least three junior counsel.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Rois

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 03, 2018, 09:26:41 PM
It is very interesting how the defendants have brought their side together under a single barrister.  There has been no dividing them despite the difference in the charges against them both in nature and severity.

Also, for N.Ireland, it is notable that the defence barrister is Brendan Kelly QC, Jackson's solicitor is Kevin Winters and Joe Rice is Olding's solicitor.
Joe Rice is the Ulster Rugby counsel. Winters is (ultimately) Jackson's solicitor, his first counsel on injunction (I stand to be corrected).

seafoid

Quote from: Orior on February 03, 2018, 08:00:11 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 03, 2018, 12:20:16 PM
It's truly amazing the insight that people seem to be able to gather about the trial based on reading a three paragraph report on two or three questions asked or answers given over the course of a days questioning. The simple fact is that unless you've been at the trial, been able to hear the evidence it's impossible to know the strength of any evidence given so far. I've run cases which I've subsequently read about in the press or seen on TV which have been unrecognisable to me.

Personally I won't ever be making a determination of the guilt or innocence of these or any other defendants unless I've had an opportunity to consider all the evidence. I know plenty will, but come the end of this trial all I will know is what the Jury have decided and I'll take it from there.

Fair enough. Yes, a lot of us are judging on the information to date which is wrong.

Why does this case have all the evidence in public? Are all rape case information in the public domain like this one?
Is it because the case is high profile ? There is a lot of interest by definition in such cases. It sells papers
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

Owen Brannigan

Quote from: Rois on February 03, 2018, 10:29:33 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 03, 2018, 09:26:41 PM
It is very interesting how the defendants have brought their side together under a single barrister.  There has been no dividing them despite the difference in the charges against them both in nature and severity.

Also, for N.Ireland, it is notable that the defence barrister is Brendan Kelly QC, Jackson's solicitor is Kevin Winters and Joe Rice is Olding's solicitor.
Joe Rice is the Ulster Rugby counsel. Winters is (ultimately) Jackson's solicitor, his first counsel on injunction (I stand to be corrected).

Would it be correct that this type of case is not usual for Kevin Winters while Joe Rice has been solicitor for a range of people from Pastor McConnell to some loyalist paramilitaries, this would not be a usual area for him?

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 03, 2018, 09:26:41 PM
It is very interesting how the defendants have brought their side together under a single barrister.  There has been no dividing them despite the difference in the charges against them both in nature and severity.

Also, for N.Ireland, it is notable that the defence barrister is Brendan Kelly QC, Jackson's solicitor is Kevin Winters and Joe Rice is Olding's solicitor.

Not notable at all. Winters are the biggest criminal law firm in the north and Rice not fair behind them. If you want someone to draw up a secure commercial contract get a Prod firm, if you want someone to fight your corner in a criminal dog fight get a fenian firm....end of story

screenexile

Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

straightred

Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

not me anyway - he muttered a few lines that he had a few days to prepare (or more likely have someone prepare for him). I think what is becoming clear is that the IRFU didn't know. It will be lost now in the euphoria of Sextons heroics but it could have been so different. Imagine that kick doesn't go over - we'd be picking over a poor performance looking for answers and our esteemed captain would have been top of a lot of people's lists. I hope he bought sexton a few pints last night