The ulster rugby trial

[Owen Brannigan]

Kelly's closing statement was some pile of rot.

The type of stuff you expect from a fat, pissed as a fart, divorced middle aged accountant at closing time in the Berkeley Court on the night of a Six Nations match, before he drives home.

Don't mince your words, go ahead and give us your usual unbiased opinion.

[seafoid]

Kelly's closing statement was some pile of rot.

The type of stuff you expect from a fat, pissed as a fart, divorced middle aged accountant at closing time in the Berkeley Court on the night of a Six Nations match, before he drives home.

I was surprised at how poor it was. He doesn't seem to have mentioned that taking your top off means consent.

[Milltown Row2]

The guys an experienced barrister, it's not his first trial I'm sure he knows what he's doing, now he's well under qualified in this company of course, the legal team here would be 1, the rest bullshit artists.. though BC1 has a good grasp of things

[Asal Mor]

Well said MR.

The level of confirmation bias here is unbelievable.

[AZOffaly]

Leaving opinions on the verdict aside, that reads like an awful defence statement.  Surely they could have have come up with a better statement than that?

I was thinking the same thing.

The first ever "Accused impact statement".

So it's fine for the girl to be traumatised by all this but not PJ. You're assuming guilt again. If he's innocent, he has every right to complain about his life being blighted.

I said Accused, not Guilty. Don't be putting words in my mouth. I have my opinion, but I'm well aware it's worthless. My opinion has nothing to do with that comment though.

[Asal Mor]

On the balance of things, I think we'd be a lot worse off as a society if people refrained from speaking their mind on things they clearly have an issue with. If it looks like a duck etc then just f**king call it a duck and don't be afraid to call out anyone protesting otherwise. In my case, I think the dry humping suggestion so laughably implausible that I'm not even going to consider it as a possibility. To my mind, it is a creation of someone who has already decided the lads aren't guilty, or that they don't want them to be guilty, and so has come up with an explanation, no matter how daft, to explain away (in their head) what Dara Florence saw.

That, of course, is not carte blanche to dismiss any and all opposing views as unworthy of consideration or discourse, the way our esteemed sheep shagging colleague from Roscommon does.

Personally don't understand this but it seems to be very prevalent. That along with the George Hook-eque "why did she go back to the house....go upstairs....take her top off..." etc is what bothers me.

Same - I'm waiting to hear from Asal Mor about why he's not impartial. Believing someone to be not guilty having listened to the evidence (which is possible, despite what Syferus claims) is not evidence of impartiality.

Like I said gallsman, I'd like to think I was impartial at the start. I tried to look at both sides of it, but having heard the evidence I believe they are not guilty and hope that is the verdict.

What evidence have you heard? You've seen a few tweets and daily summaries like the rest of us. "Hoping" they're found not guilty is strange to me.

What I hope for is justice to be served. Nothing more or less.

I've heard enough to know that there's a reasonable doubt and imo the only just verdict at this point is a not guilty verdict. As I said before though, I wouldn't lose any sleep over these lads.

[Asal Mor]

Leaving opinions on the verdict aside, that reads like an awful defence statement.  Surely they could have have come up with a better statement than that?

I was thinking the same thing.

The first ever "Accused impact statement".

So it's fine for the girl to be traumatised by all this but not PJ. You're assuming guilt again. If he's innocent, he has every right to complain about his life being blighted.

I said Accused, not Guilty. Don't be putting words in my mouth. I have my opinion, but I'm well aware it's worthless. My opinion has nothing to do with that comment though.

Apologies AZ I jumped the gun a bit there.

[Asal Mor]

On the balance of things, I think we'd be a lot worse off as a society if people refrained from speaking their mind on things they clearly have an issue with. If it looks like a duck etc then just f**king call it a duck and don't be afraid to call out anyone protesting otherwise. In my case, I think the dry humping suggestion so laughably implausible that I'm not even going to consider it as a possibility. To my mind, it is a creation of someone who has already decided the lads aren't guilty, or that they don't want them to be guilty, and so has come up with an explanation, no matter how daft, to explain away (in their head) what Dara Florence saw.

That, of course, is not carte blanche to dismiss any and all opposing views as unworthy of consideration or discourse, the way our esteemed sheep shagging colleague from Roscommon does.

Personally don't understand this but it seems to be very prevalent. That along with the George Hook-eque "why did she go back to the house....go upstairs....take her top off..." etc is what bothers me.

Going back to the house and going upstairs are far removed from taking your own top off. The first two don't indicate consent, the last one does. I wonder what those who get upset at the mention of personal responsibility would say to their teenage daughters about the case. My bet is they'd give them a lecture that would sound a lot like a lecture on personal responsibility would. There are plenty of bastards out there.

[HiMucker]

Well said MR.

The level of confirmation bias here is unbelievable.

Hold on, saying that statement is crap isnt an indication of bias.  I take it that it is supposed to sway jurors.  Do you think it was a good defence?  If so fair enough, but I thought it was awful, and I would be willig to bet most people would think the same regardless of their option regarding the verdict.

[Asal Mor]

I'm no expert but he made all the points I'd expect him to make. What specifically was wrong with it?

[AQMP]

On the balance of things, I think we'd be a lot worse off as a society if people refrained from speaking their mind on things they clearly have an issue with. If it looks like a duck etc then just f**king call it a duck and don't be afraid to call out anyone protesting otherwise. In my case, I think the dry humping suggestion so laughably implausible that I'm not even going to consider it as a possibility. To my mind, it is a creation of someone who has already decided the lads aren't guilty, or that they don't want them to be guilty, and so has come up with an explanation, no matter how daft, to explain away (in their head) what Dara Florence saw.

That, of course, is not carte blanche to dismiss any and all opposing views as unworthy of consideration or discourse, the way our esteemed sheep shagging colleague from Roscommon does.

Personally don't understand this but it seems to be very prevalent. That along with the George Hook-eque "why did she go back to the house....go upstairs....take her top off..." etc is what bothers me.

Going back to the house and going upstairs are far removed from taking your own top off. The first two don't indicate consent, the last one does. I wonder what those who get upset at the mention of personal responsibility would say to their teenage daughters about the case. My bet is they'd give them a lecture that would sound a lot like a lecture on personal responsibility would. There are plenty of b**tards out there.

Incredible post

[sid waddell]

Reference was also made to prosecution witness Dara Florence who believed she had walked in on a threesome and was invited to stay.

Mr Kelly said: "She walked into the room where, if the prosecution are correct, a rape was taking place times two.

"She was invited to join in. She said 'no' and Jackson said 'are you sure?'.

"To join in a rape?

"Ask yourself this, if (the complainant), as she tells you, was not consenting and Dara had said 'yes I'd love to', picture what would the scene be – those on the left not consenting, those on the right consenting."

He continued: "Is it really the Crown's case that half the bed would have been consenting and half not?"

Either Mr. Kelly is labouring under the misapprehension that if a man believes he's not committing a rape, it can't be rape. Which for a QC, would be staggering.

Or, more likely, he's just saying things that he knows full well are absolute rot.

[sid waddell]

On the balance of things, I think we'd be a lot worse off as a society if people refrained from speaking their mind on things they clearly have an issue with. If it looks like a duck etc then just f**king call it a duck and don't be afraid to call out anyone protesting otherwise. In my case, I think the dry humping suggestion so laughably implausible that I'm not even going to consider it as a possibility. To my mind, it is a creation of someone who has already decided the lads aren't guilty, or that they don't want them to be guilty, and so has come up with an explanation, no matter how daft, to explain away (in their head) what Dara Florence saw.

That, of course, is not carte blanche to dismiss any and all opposing views as unworthy of consideration or discourse, the way our esteemed sheep shagging colleague from Roscommon does.

Personally don't understand this but it seems to be very prevalent. That along with the George Hook-eque "why did she go back to the house....go upstairs....take her top off..." etc is what bothers me.

Going back to the house and going upstairs are far removed from taking your own top off. The first two don't indicate consent, the last one does. I wonder what those who get upset at the mention of personal responsibility would say to their teenage daughters about the case. My bet is they'd give them a lecture that would sound a lot like a lecture on personal responsibility would. There are plenty of b**tards out there.

Being ordered to take off your top and complying is not consent.

There is no such a thing as a personal responsibility to not be a rape victim.

[AZOffaly]

Reference was also made to prosecution witness Dara Florence who believed she had walked in on a threesome and was invited to stay.

Mr Kelly said: "She walked into the room where, if the prosecution are correct, a rape was taking place times two.

"She was invited to join in. She said 'no' and Jackson said 'are you sure?'.

"To join in a rape?

"Ask yourself this, if (the complainant), as she tells you, was not consenting and Dara had said 'yes I'd love to', picture what would the scene be – those on the left not consenting, those on the right consenting."

He continued: "Is it really the Crown's case that half the bed would have been consenting and half not?"

Either Mr. Kelly is labouring under the misapprehension that if a man believes he's not committing a rape, it can't be rape. Which for a QC, would be staggering.

Or, more likely, he's just saying things that he knows full well are absolute rot.

Did David not say above that if the jury believes Jackson and co thought they had consent, then it's not rape. Essentially the woman could refuse or withdraw consent, but if the accused could demonstrate they believed they had consent, they would be acquitted?

[gallsman]

Reference was also made to prosecution witness Dara Florence who believed she had walked in on a threesome and was invited to stay.

Mr Kelly said: "She walked into the room where, if the prosecution are correct, a rape was taking place times two.

"She was invited to join in. She said 'no' and Jackson said 'are you sure?'.

"To join in a rape?

"Ask yourself this, if (the complainant), as she tells you, was not consenting and Dara had said 'yes I'd love to', picture what would the scene be – those on the left not consenting, those on the right consenting."

He continued: "Is it really the Crown's case that half the bed would have been consenting and half not?"

Either Mr. Kelly is labouring under the misapprehension that if a man believes he's not committing a rape, it can't be rape. Which for a QC, would be staggering.

Or, more likely, he's just saying things that he knows full well are absolute rot.

Did David not say above that if the jury believes Jackson and co thought they had consent, then it's not rape. Essentially the woman could refuse or withdraw consent, but if the accused could demonstrate they believed they had consent, they would be acquitted?

That presupposes that they know the intricacies of the legal definition of rape.

Them believing they weren't committing a rape and them not reasonably believing she had consented are not mutually exclusive