The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 08:29:33 PM
Can it ever be totally beyond doubt.  At the end of the day it's one persons word versus another's.  A rape trial must be horrific for the victim of rape.

Hence the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. It can never be total. It's what is deemed reasonable

LeoMc

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.
Even the defence request / instruction for Rory Best to attend Court was poorly thought through. Here we have a girl who stated she had been afraid to come forward initially because she would be up against all of Ulster Rigby. Then the defence instruct the players to attend court, making her fear look justified.

Syferus

They thought it it would play to the jury that Irish rugby was behind the rapists but it totally backfired.

magpie seanie

It will be interesting to see if Jackson and Olding do testify. Is it not unusual in criminal trials for the accused to take the stand (genuinely don't know but seem to remember hearing in murder cases it's seen as a kind of desperate measure)?

Avondhu star

Quote from: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:31:21 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 08:22:38 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:14:29 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 06:02:05 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events after they've taken the stand?
If the accused relate a different version of events the prosecution will have the opportunity to cross examine them. Then of course the defence counsel may not put the accused into the witness box at all as is their right.  Then it is a case of the jury  believing the girl enough to give a beyond reasonable
doubt verdict of guilty, acquitting or failing to agree.
I don't think her evidence is beyond doubt from reading the reports so far.

Sooo.... Is that a No?
If a new version of events is raised it will be during her cross examination. Prosecution will be able to examine her to dispute this new version.
It's a No
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

Avondhu star

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 07, 2018, 09:31:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 08:29:33 PM
Can it ever be totally beyond doubt.  At the end of the day it's one persons word versus another's.  A rape trial must be horrific for the victim of rape.

Hence the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. It can never be total. It's what is deemed reasonable
Beyond reasonable doubt not beyond all reasonable doubt. There is a big difference.
If the jury has a doubt about any particular piece of evidence the accused must get the benefit of that doubt
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

Avondhu star

Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 09:53:18 PM
It will be interesting to see if Jackson and Olding do testify. Is it not unusual in criminal trials for the accused to take the stand (genuinely don't know but seem to remember hearing in murder cases it's seen as a kind of desperate measure)?
It can be a gamble depending on the weight of evidence.
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

Franko

Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 04:16:22 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 07, 2018, 04:07:37 PM
And what will happen if the players prevail?

Justice will again have not been served in a rape trial.

Anyone who comes out with a statement like this without having even heard one side of the story is clearly a buffoon whose mindset would put him in a similar bracket to Tony Fearon and the local paedo hunting brigade. All opinions emanating from said buffoon should be given due credence.

omaghjoe

#398
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 10:21:10 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:31:21 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 08:22:38 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:14:29 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 06:02:05 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events after they've taken the stand?
If the accused relate a different version of events the prosecution will have the opportunity to cross examine them. Then of course the defence counsel may not put the accused into the witness box at all as is their right.  Then it is a case of the jury  believing the girl enough to give a beyond reasonable
doubt verdict of guilty, acquitting or failing to agree.
I don't think her evidence is beyond doubt from reading the reports so far.

Sooo.... Is that a No?
If a new version of events is raised it will be during her cross examination. Prosecution will be able to examine her to dispute this new version.
It's a No

Sorry my bad

I'll rephrase...

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events introduced by subsequent witnesses that arises after they have finished their testimony?

sid waddell

In the opening statement by the prosecution QC, it is stated that the complainant alleges vaginal sex occurred while Jackson maintains it did not.

Is DNA evidence likely to be introduced by the prosecution, I wonder?

I'm still struggling to see any inconsistencies in the complainant's story as reported by media.

Olding's claim that he merely went to "crash out" in Jackson's bedroom seems very unconvincing to me.

Interesting also that some evidence has apparently not been reported on by the media because it is so graphic - at least according to the Belfast Telegraph's summing up of the first week of the trial.



sid waddell

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 07, 2018, 09:31:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 08:29:33 PM
Can it ever be totally beyond doubt.  At the end of the day it's one persons word versus another's.  A rape trial must be horrific for the victim of rape.

Hence the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. It can never be total. It's what is deemed reasonable
I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is: was it beyond reasonable doubt that Jackson and Olding were reckless as to whether they believed they had consent?

Believing you had consent does not equal not guilty.

stew

Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:33:51 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 07, 2018, 09:31:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 08:29:33 PM
Can it ever be totally beyond doubt.  At the end of the day it's one persons word versus another's.  A rape trial must be horrific for the victim of rape.

Hence the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. It can never be total. It's what is deemed reasonable
I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is: was it beyond reasonable doubt that Jackson and Olding were reckless as to whether they believed they had consent?

Believing you had consent does not equal not guilty.

Sid what the f**k would you know about the burden of proof? funny, I dont remember the burden of proof being mentioned on a thread were you gleefully threw the entire presidential staff under the bus for two ex wives claiming their ex husband, a staffer, abused them physically.



Armagh, the one true love of a mans life.

haranguerer

Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 03:57:18 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 07, 2018, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 02:39:26 PM
There's cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say "I don't really believe the rape victim". So they think they're doing a good job obfuscating what's in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after 'stars' or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they're approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

You also forgot to mention that she took her top off then gave the second guy a blowjob, before seeing the third guy and deciding enough is enough.

Before people jump down my throat note that I am only describing the defence case, not my own view.

At the end of the day, there will be no winners in this court case except the lawyers.

If the victim prevails she will have shown an incredible amount of bravery and struck a massive blow against those who think they are above being prosecuted for sexual assault. After what happened to her that would be very much a win.

You and others are playing with fire here. I saw that one group is sending her 3 roses every day for the duration of the trial. It got them a lot of likes and retweets.

If these players are found not to have raped this girl, then she is going to be in a very bad place mentally. She is under a lot of pressure, and that has been increased a hundred fold by the likes of you holding this case up as some sort of moral battle. As far as I'm aware, this girl didn't nominate herself to be a champion of any of the various degrees of movements which have waded in behind her - it seems to me most people championing her are using her as much as Jackson and Olding did.

nrico2006

Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 08:32:09 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 03:57:18 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 07, 2018, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 02:39:26 PM
There's cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say "I don't really believe the rape victim". So they think they're doing a good job obfuscating what's in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after 'stars' or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they're approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

You also forgot to mention that she took her top off then gave the second guy a blowjob, before seeing the third guy and deciding enough is enough.

Before people jump down my throat note that I am only describing the defence case, not my own view.

At the end of the day, there will be no winners in this court case except the lawyers.

If the victim prevails she will have shown an incredible amount of bravery and struck a massive blow against those who think they are above being prosecuted for sexual assault. After what happened to her that would be very much a win.

You and others are playing with fire here. I saw that one group is sending her 3 roses every day for the duration of the trial. It got them a lot of likes and retweets.

If these players are found not to have raped this girl, then she is going to be in a very bad place mentally. She is under a lot of pressure, and that has been increased a hundred fold by the likes of you holding this case up as some sort of moral battle. As far as I'm aware, this girl didn't nominate herself to be a champion of any of the various degrees of movements which have waded in behind her - it seems to me most people championing her are using her as much as Jackson and Olding did.

At this stage she is only an alleged victim.
'To the extreme I rock a mic like a vandal, light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle.'

mackers

Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:28:12 AM
Interesting also that some evidence has apparently not been reported on by the media because it is so graphic - at least according to the Belfast Telegraph's summing up of the first week of the trial.
I was listening to Matt Cooper yesterday evening and the guy reporting on it was fairly graphic.  You could nearly here Cooper shifting about in the seat.  It left it very clear in my head the exact position everybody had when these acts were being carried out.  I was glad none of the children were in the car with me.
Keep your pecker hard and your powder dry and the world will turn.