The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

TyroneOnlooker

Reading through this thread would put years on you! It's amazing the number of legal experts that read this board as well.

A few things I would note;
1.I don't think any contributors have been sitting in the court room each day so we're only going on the newspaper reports which obviously won't be the full story. But I fail to see how anyone could firm to a firm conclusion either way at this point. The prosecution case made the alleged perpetrators look bad. The defence will now try and put doubt on that story and make the alleged victim look bad. This is a serious matter affecting peoples lives. Wait to the end before making judgements about people.
2.I have seen photos which apparently show the victim involved. Who knows if they are real or not. Either way, whatever way a girl is dresses DOES NOT indicate she is fair game or somehow brought this on herself. Crazy attitude to take.
3.Best and Henderson - advised/directed by senior counsel to attend. Unless I'm mistaken, barristers do not have any power to compel anyone to go to court so this can be construed as the defendant's barristers asked them to attend and they duly agreed. You could look at this two ways. Firstly, a move by the defence to create the media hysteria we've seen, take attention away from Jackson etc and secondly, it also seems like common sense. You're considering providing a character witness for someone accused of rape. Would you not want to hear both sides of the story, get a sense for the thing before you do that? I know i would.


Asal Mor

#286
Quote from: sid waddell on February 06, 2018, 01:18:50 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers".
No, I really don't think you could.

It takes slightly more bravery to put yourself through a tortuous process lasting over 18 months which ends in a trial in which you are exposed to exhaustive and extremely difficult cross examination and a public which is intent on violating your right to anonymity, than it does to fire off a few obnoxious, hungover text messages to your mates.
You're misinterpreting me there Sid - Maybe I could have worded it better.

My point is that one could argue that the lads wouldn't have sent those messages if they thought the police might come knocking. It's not a factual argument but I was making it to highlight the pointlessness of the "she wouldn't go through with it unless she was genuine" argument, when there are verifiable examples of cases where girls have seen false claims through to the bitter end, usually through feelings of regret and humiliation, regardless of how harrowing the process is.

HiMucker

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 07:24:13 AM
I'll repost this as I would be interested to hear what those who have already decided that Jackson is guilty think......

From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?


The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time she was in the room but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered but not reported.
I thought I read that she said something like "no not him as well" when Olding walked in??  Open to correction though.

seafoid

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/nicola-anderson-consent-at-the-heart-of-testimony-as-alleged-victim-gives-evidence-36571998.html
"
At its heart lay the crucial issue of consent - had it ever existed in the contact between Irish international Paddy Jackson and the young woman at the centre of these rape claims?

Brendan Kelly, Mr Jackson's barrister, suggested that it had.

She had been "fixated" on the rugby player, had been "desperate" to attend his party and had been "staring at him" all night, and followed him into the kitchen several times, he put it to her.

At times throughout the day, the young woman became emotional as she insisted that she had never consented to what she claims occurred that night.

So why not ring your friends and tell them to come?" he queried.

"I didn't think it was appropriate because it wasn't my house," she replied.

"So there was nothing wrong with the party," Mr Kelly stated."

Kelly was on a bit of a shaky scraw
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

Dinny Breen

This thread is definitely Lord of the Flies territory and we all know who Jack, leader of the hunters is.
#newbridgeornowhere

gallsman

A couple of longstanding Board elders are absolutely embarrassing themselves on this thread.

On the reporting so far, the girl appears to be handling herself pretty well under examination.

tonto1888

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 08:10:51 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 06, 2018, 01:18:50 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers".
No, I really don't think you could.

It takes slightly more bravery to put yourself through a tortuous process lasting over 18 months which ends in a trial in which you are exposed to exhaustive and extremely difficult cross examination and a public which is intent on violating your right to anonymity, than it does to fire off a few obnoxious, hungover text messages to your mates.
You're misinterpreting me there Sid - Maybe I could have worded it better.

My point is that one could argue that the lads wouldn't have sent those messages if they thought the police might come knocking. It's not a factual argument but I was making it to highlight the pointlessness of the "she wouldn't go through with it unless she was genuine" argument, when there are verifiable examples of cases where girls have seen false claims through to the bitter end, usually through feelings of regret and humiliation, regardless of how harrowing the process is.

they could have thought the girl would never go to the police or that their "stardom" would keep them safe?

Asal Mor

Quote from: tonto1888 on February 06, 2018, 09:09:15 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 08:10:51 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 06, 2018, 01:18:50 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers".
No, I really don't think you could.

It takes slightly more bravery to put yourself through a tortuous process lasting over 18 months which ends in a trial in which you are exposed to exhaustive and extremely difficult cross examination and a public which is intent on violating your right to anonymity, than it does to fire off a few obnoxious, hungover text messages to your mates.
You're misinterpreting me there Sid - Maybe I could have worded it better.

My point is that one could argue that the lads wouldn't have sent those messages if they thought the police might come knocking. It's not a factual argument but I was making it to highlight the pointlessness of the "she wouldn't go through with it unless she was genuine" argument, when there are verifiable examples of cases where girls have seen false claims through to the bitter end, usually through feelings of regret and humiliation, regardless of how harrowing the process is.

they could have thought the girl would never go to the police or that their "stardom" would keep them safe?
Absolutely possible. That's why it's a pointless argument. Just as "why would she put herself through all this unless she was raped?" is.

Walter Cronc


TabClear

Haven't been following this too closely but as an observation from from the newspaper reports she seems to come across as very articulate and intelligent. Definitely doesn't seem to fit the stereotype for the "footballer chasing wag wannabe " that the UK tabloids love.


johnneycool

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 07:24:13 AM
I'll repost this as I would be interested to hear what those who have already decided that Jackson is guilty think......

From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?


The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time she was in the room but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered but not reported.


BUT as I said in another post, Jackson and the girl had consentually kissed in the bedroom, Paddy went to take it further and was rebuked by the girl who then went downstairs. She put on her shoes, about to leave, but realising she's left her bag in the bedroom went up to get it with Jackson following her and forcing herself upon her.

This is obviously her version of events, but Paddy may be caught out if the first part is true and she did knock him back and leave the room. What made Paddy think she'd changed her mind????

Milltown Row2

Who knows what really happen, by all accounts they had been drinking from early and into the wee hours. She has said herself that things are a bit hazy. When you drink that much you do lose some recollection of events..

Now lets see who bites first..
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Asal Mor

#297
Quote from: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 11:41:04 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 07:24:13 AM
I'll repost this as I would be interested to hear what those who have already decided that Jackson is guilty think......

From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?


The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time she was in the room but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered but not reported.


BUT as I said in another post, Jackson and the girl had consentually kissed in the bedroom, Paddy went to take it further and was rebuked by the girl who then went downstairs. She put on her shoes, about to leave, but realising she's left her bag in the bedroom went up to get it with Jackson following her and forcing herself upon her.

This is obviously her version of events, but Paddy may be caught out if the first part is true and she did knock him back and leave the room. What made Paddy think she'd changed her mind????
Fair point Johnny but even if Jackson knew she was planning to leave(and I'm not sure it's clear that he did) and was just coming back for her bag, he might have chanced his arm at trying to carry on the kissing and it could have gone from there. Did she do anything, verbal or non-verbal, to show she didn't want to? Did she just freeze and do and say nothing (in which case it's still rape)? If I was a juror I'd want to hear more detail. And if she did freeze I'd like to know what was different from the first time when she told him no.

Tony Baloney

Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

Asal Mor

 :) I'm not sure that walking in on a couple having consensual sex  and joining in is a "legitimate threesome". I'll bow to your experience on that one Tony.

From what I've heard so far I would consider Jackson as having a better case for being exonerated than the others.