The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

TabClear

This thread has gotten to the stage now where any comment is getting jumped upon. Despite Syferus's opinion to the contrary nobody on here has any idea what happened. The Judge/Jury will have access to significantly more evidence that you see through the court reports.

One observation I find strange is the comments about fear of being filmed when the other girl walked in. Totally understand that position obviously for a young woman but it did strike me as something that would be more likely to go through your head if you were involved in consensual activity that you did nt want getting out.  If it was not consensual I would have thought that wouldn't be the first thing you think off. And before anyone starts calling me a rape apologist etc, its just an observation,  I accept I have no idea what would be going through someone's mind in either situation and I have no idea whether these guys are guilty or not. As has been said above, the testimony from the other girl will be fairly key.

As an aside it is however a sad indictment of the mobile  phone camera generation that this is something that clearly does happen, i.e. someone walking into a bedroom and photographing you. Mobile phone cameras were thankfully not on the go when I was a student but the constant photo-taking on nights out by the "younger generation" is a pet hate of mine.

Owen Brannigan

In the absence of forensic evidence in its widest sense, a jury will make decisions based on perceptions and for all of us (as witnessed in this thread and others) perceptions quickly become our realities.  So, the defence and the prosecution will both work on the perceptions of the jury to try to manipulate the realities of the jurors before they make up their minds.

This trial is relatively unique for N.Ireland as it involves the behaviour of young middle class people from a relatively compact area of Belfast. 

On the other hand, the jury will more than likely have a greater socio-economic and geographic spread than those being questioned by the barristers on both sides and will be well aware of the backgrounds of those before them.

To date, the plaintiff, after five days in the witness stand, has come across as relatively composed, very articulate, quite combative with the barristers and, as far as media reports indicate, has withstood the ordeal well while giving a very good account of herself despite the obvious humiliation provided by her situation and the detail involved. 

Will the jury go home for the weekend thinking well of her and if so how much will that affect their perceptions of the defendants? 

Her testimony is on the record and will be tested in detail in the coming weeks.

The trail is scheduled for another three weeks and the effect on the jury of the defendant's time as a witness can only diminish over this time as only the prosecution barrister can stand up for her as the defendants make their cases and try to unpick the jurors' perceptions of the plaintiff.


sid waddell

Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 09:37:03 AM
Quote from: Aaron Boone on February 08, 2018, 08:27:09 PM
At least we have moved on from Rory Best.

I think everyone now realises what that was. The alleged victim is still giving evidence and he hasn't appeared since. How will he possibly make up his mind?????? Such rubbish.

A disgraceful episode.

David Walsh and Donal Og Cusack took a massive amount of flak for writing character references for Tom Humphries.

But they weren't trying to influence whether he was guilty or not.

If Best appears as a character witness, he will only be appearing in an attempt to persuade the jury that the defendants are not guilty.

That's his right, but it sits very uneasily and the optics of it will be dreadful if it happens.


TabClear

Quote from: sid waddell on February 09, 2018, 11:32:59 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 09:37:03 AM
Quote from: Aaron Boone on February 08, 2018, 08:27:09 PM
At least we have moved on from Rory Best.

I think everyone now realises what that was. The alleged victim is still giving evidence and he hasn't appeared since. How will he possibly make up his mind?????? Such rubbish.

A disgraceful episode.

David Walsh and Donal Og Cusack took a massive amount of flak for writing character references for Tom Humphries.

But they weren't trying to influence whether he was guilty or not.

If Best appears as a character witness, he will only be appearing in an attempt to persuade the jury that the defendants are not guilty.

That's his right, but it sits very uneasily and the optics of it will be dreadful if it happens.

And given the defence case and (undisputed?) Whatsapps that the guys were sending round the next day, he would be at best giving character references for f**king morons and at worst for rapists.

general_lee

Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 09:37:03 AM
Quote from: Aaron Boone on February 08, 2018, 08:27:09 PM
At least we have moved on from Rory Best.

I think everyone now realises what that was. The alleged victim is still giving evidence and he hasn't appeared since. How will he possibly make up his mind?????? Such rubbish.

A disgraceful episode.
Maybe he has decided not to give character references?

AZOffaly

I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?

magpie seanie

Quote from: AZOffaly on February 09, 2018, 12:38:21 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?

Yes. Only if they were convicted would this come into play as a means of sentence reduction. The explanation given (eventually) for Best's appearance in the gallery last week has proven out to be a load of bullshit. This leaves only one possible explanation in my mind. I think even the most people can surely see that now.

general_lee

Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 12:49:15 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 09, 2018, 12:38:21 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?

Yes. Only if they were convicted would this come into play as a means of sentence reduction. The explanation given (eventually) for Best's appearance in the gallery last week has proven out to be a load of bullshit. This leaves only one possible explanation in my mind. I think even the most people can surely see that now.
Sure if they're not yet found guilty of anything what on earth is the problem with going then? And spare me the whole victim intimidation spiel

David McKeown

That's not legally right. There are limited circumstances when character witnesses can be called to speak to the good character of a witness. I am not saying that is happening in this case but it's not right that character witnesses only appearing at sentencing. They can albeit rarely appear as witnesses at trial.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

AZOffaly

Quote from: David McKeown on February 09, 2018, 12:57:01 PM
That's not legally right. There are limited circumstances when character witnesses can be called to speak to the good character of a witness. I am not saying that is happening in this case but it's not right that character witnesses only appearing at sentencing. They can albeit rarely appear as witnesses at trial.

Good character of a witness David? As in corroborating this witness testimony because he's a good guy? Or as character witness for accused?

magpie seanie

Quote from: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 12:52:54 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 12:49:15 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 09, 2018, 12:38:21 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?

Yes. Only if they were convicted would this come into play as a means of sentence reduction. The explanation given (eventually) for Best's appearance in the gallery last week has proven out to be a load of bullshit. This leaves only one possible explanation in my mind. I think even the most people can surely see that now.
Sure if they're not yet found guilty of anything what on earth is the problem with going then? And spare me the whole victim intimidation spiel

The judge obviously felt it was noteworthy and issued instruction to the jury. It wasn't to intimidate the witness, it was sending a message to the jury.

magpie seanie

Quote from: David McKeown on February 09, 2018, 12:57:01 PM
That's not legally right. There are limited circumstances when character witnesses can be called to speak to the good character of a witness. I am not saying that is happening in this case but it's not right that character witnesses only appearing at sentencing. They can albeit rarely appear as witnesses at trial.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification. I'd like to know what the circumstances would be and if it's likely in this case. Thanks.

general_lee

Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 12:59:05 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 12:52:54 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 12:49:15 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 09, 2018, 12:38:21 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?

Yes. Only if they were convicted would this come into play as a means of sentence reduction. The explanation given (eventually) for Best's appearance in the gallery last week has proven out to be a load of bullshit. This leaves only one possible explanation in my mind. I think even the most people can surely see that now.
Sure if they're not yet found guilty of anything what on earth is the problem with going then? And spare me the whole victim intimidation spiel

The judge obviously felt it was noteworthy and issued instruction to the jury. It wasn't to intimidate the witness, it was sending a message to the jury.
Nothing to do with the social media backlash aimed at Best I'm sure.

Milltown Row2

Quote from: AZOffaly on February 09, 2018, 12:38:21 PM
I thought Character References were only in the event of sentencing? Sure Best can hardly go on the stand and say the lads are great lads, as if it were evidence related to the case?

If and its a huge IF! If these lads are not convicted and the jury say's, based on the evidence that it was "consensual sexual activity", then they have carried out a sexual act in agreement with a girl... It's called a threesome and I'm sure there are a lot of single guys and girls out there that have been in that position (no pun), it happens, its not dirty and the texts afterwards are just that, lads and girls laughing their heads of at something they agreed two..

As far as Best is concerned, he has only heard it from Olding and Jackson, two lads that he has known for a long time and he's taken their word that it was all above board, plus asked by layers to be there.

These lads would be more privy to that sort of situation than many on this board, while it sounds more like a porn movie, this is probably happening more often to minor celbs than the Joe Bloggs from Andytown..

I'm not buying the lads text messages at all as being anything other than bragging about having sex, there are millions of these texts going about on a daily bases, if you raped someone why would you brag about it?

So Best will probably sit this one out, as the ones that have him hung drawn and quartered already believe the lads are guilty, regardless of the findings, if they are found guilty then a character ref will be asked no doubt, whether Best or the rest do that god knows..

Hopefully something will come out of this, making our kids more aware of their actions can lead to defining moments in their lives and alter a straight forward night out into a nightmare future for the career's...

when will the prosecution rest their case? or what happens? my fireside law degree dosent know
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

straightred

i see the jury visited Jackson's house today. How does that work? Has the house been effectively locked up since this allegedly took place?