The ulster rugby trial

[seafoid]

Another key point was this one from AQMP on 21 Feb

"The doctor called to give evidence on Jackson's behalf said she didn't see an injury on the alleged victim but admitted she had not examined her and was going on medical notes and a video of the alleged victim's nethers. 

One key point she made was that when the prosecution asked whether most victims of sexual assault resist or allow it to happen she replied that the "overwhelming evidence" shows that victims do not resist.  This comes back to a point made last week, "what does consent look like""

[Asal Mor]

I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

I can't speak for anyone else but my notion that the verdict should be not guilty is not pre-conceived but based on the fact that, as Olding's barrister said today, the evidence isn't anywhere near the required quality to convict. I actually think the case should never have been prosecuted. Everyone is much worse off and only the 2 bit part players face any chance of being convicted.

Very strong from Olding's barrister today.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/there-is-no-case-here-stuart-oldings-defence-barrister-tells-court-36728286.html

[Asal Mor]

DF said that she was 100% sure that Jackson was having full sex with the girl "from the movement"

Brendan Kelly asked DF

"From what you could see, and please listen to my question very carefully: were there any signs of (the complainant) not consenting to what was going on?"

Ms Florence replied: "No."

Re-examined by the prosecution:

She said that apart from turning her head the complainant did not move (presumably then the movement that DF saw was by Jackson as the complainant didn't move?)

Hedworth then said: "Were there any signs that (the complainant) was positively consenting?"

The woman said: "No."

So DF doesn't know whether the complainant was consenting or not?  Surely in 45 secs or so she would have seen some sign that the alleged victim was consenting (if it wasn't a rape)?

That would be a valid argument if the girl was oblivious to DF standing at the door. It's not surprising that noticing another girl at the door (and she claimed that she was afraid DF might be filming her) would quell any signs of positive consent that might have been there before she opened the door. Didn't DF say she heard moaning noises that stopped when she opened the door?  - I think I read that but am open to correction.

I find it much stranger that despite fearing she was filmed and that a video of this 3 some might appear on social media it still slipped her mind in the police interview. Even allowing for trauma, it's just an unbelievable omission imo.

I think you're right on the moaning - and maybe she was asked, but it wasn't reported - was the moaning 1 person, 2, 3, male, female?  But there must have been even a few seconds where before she was noticed DF was able to see Jackson 100% having sex with the complainant and for her (DF) to notice that it didn't look like a rape and that the girl wasn't either consenting or not consenting.  If all activity stopped when DF opened the door then I think that further undermines her evidence, but actually that didn't happen cos PJ kept on going

Also how could the girl moan when...OK I wont go there!

Why must there have been a few seconds before she was noticed?  The door could have made a noise, DF could have made a surprised noise or they could have just seen her. I think you're engaging in what our learned friends at Laganside would call conjecture.

[Hound]

Another key point was this one from AQMP on 21 Feb

"The doctor called to give evidence on Jackson's behalf said she didn't see an injury on the alleged victim but admitted she had not examined her and was going on medical notes and a video of the alleged victim's nethers. 

One key point she made was that when the prosecution asked whether most victims of sexual assault resist or allow it to happen she replied that the "overwhelming evidence" shows that victims do not resist.  This comes back to a point made last week, "what does consent look like""

Absolutely.
Pity nobody asked her would that still be the case if an independent rescuer walked in on them? Would most victims take advantage of this rescue or would they turn their head away from the rescuer and continue to comply with the perpetrators? Would they avoid the opportunity to walk out in such circumstances?

[AQMP]

DF said that she was 100% sure that Jackson was having full sex with the girl "from the movement"

Brendan Kelly asked DF

"From what you could see, and please listen to my question very carefully: were there any signs of (the complainant) not consenting to what was going on?"

Ms Florence replied: "No."

Re-examined by the prosecution:

She said that apart from turning her head the complainant did not move (presumably then the movement that DF saw was by Jackson as the complainant didn't move?)

Hedworth then said: "Were there any signs that (the complainant) was positively consenting?"

The woman said: "No."

So DF doesn't know whether the complainant was consenting or not?  Surely in 45 secs or so she would have seen some sign that the alleged victim was consenting (if it wasn't a rape)?

That would be a valid argument if the girl was oblivious to DF standing at the door. It's not surprising that noticing another girl at the door (and she claimed that she was afraid DF might be filming her) would quell any signs of positive consent that might have been there before she opened the door. Didn't DF say she heard moaning noises that stopped when she opened the door?  - I think I read that but am open to correction.

I find it much stranger that despite fearing she was filmed and that a video of this 3 some might appear on social media it still slipped her mind in the police interview. Even allowing for trauma, it's just an unbelievable omission imo.

I think you're right on the moaning - and maybe she was asked, but it wasn't reported - was the moaning 1 person, 2, 3, male, female?  But there must have been even a few seconds where before she was noticed DF was able to see Jackson 100% having sex with the complainant and for her (DF) to notice that it didn't look like a rape and that the girl wasn't either consenting or not consenting.  If all activity stopped when DF opened the door then I think that further undermines her evidence, but actually that didn't happen cos PJ kept on going

Also how could the girl moan when...OK I wont go there!

Why must there have been a few seconds before she was noticed?  The door could have made a noise, DF could have made a surprised noise or they could have just seen her. I think you're engaging in what our learned friends at Laganside would call conjecture.

Conjecture indeed.

Sorry are you saying it was shorter than a few seconds? 

Also Clare Matthews testified that DF opened the door and closed it "a few seconds later" which is certainly less than a minute as DF testified (i.e. it supports DF's evidence that she was in the room for less than a minute...much less .

Also on the moaning, DF testified that she couldn't be sure the moaning was sexual in nature

[yellowcard]

I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

I can't speak for anyone else but my notion that the verdict should be not guilty is not pre-conceived but based on the fact that, as Olding's barrister said today, the evidence isn't anywhere near the required quality to convict. I actually think the case should never have been prosecuted. Everyone is much worse off and only the 2 bit part players face any chance of being convicted.

Very strong from Olding's barrister today.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/there-is-no-case-here-stuart-oldings-defence-barrister-tells-court-36728286.html

You have only gone and re-inforced my point. You have taken Olding's barristers argument and taken it as gospel. Someone from the other side could take the alleged victim's barrister statements and do likewise and both could have valid arguments. It does seem to boil down to what exactly constitutes rape. Dara Florence said that she did not consider it rape yet she also stated that she couldn't state that it was consensual. I think that in order to examine exactly what constitutes rape you have to look to other cases and how women react in the circumstances. Do they verbally scream and show physical resistance or do they freeze as the girl claims that she done? Then you have to make up your mind as to whether she is telling the truth based on the whole series of events. 

[Orior]

I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

I can't speak for anyone else but my notion that the verdict should be not guilty is not pre-conceived but based on the fact that, as Olding's barrister said today, the evidence isn't anywhere near the required quality to convict. I actually think the case should never have been prosecuted. Everyone is much worse off and only the 2 bit part players face any chance of being convicted.

Very strong from Olding's barrister today.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/there-is-no-case-here-stuart-oldings-defence-barrister-tells-court-36728286.html

You have only gone and re-inforced my point. You have taken Olding's barristers argument and taken it as gospel. Someone from the other side could take the alleged victim's barrister statements and do likewise and both could have valid arguments. It does seem to boil down to what exactly constitutes rape. Dara Florence said that she did not consider it rape yet she also stated that she couldn't state that it was consensual. I think that in order to examine exactly what constitutes rape you have to look to other cases and how women react in the circumstances. Do they verbally scream and show physical resistance or do they freeze as the girl claims that she done? Then you have to make up your mind as to whether she is telling the truth based on the whole series of events.

I think in peoples minds, there are pieces of evidence that is canceled out by other pieces of evidence. So when posting an opinion, people will put their opinion around one or two pieces of evidence.

To give an opinion based on all the evidence would require pages and pages of posting, which most people don't have the time to do.

[Asal Mor]

Do you mean to tell me Yellowcard that if someone went through your 2660 posts that everyone of them would present a balanced argument on the topic in question?

In this case I'm saying the verdict has to be not guilty and backing it up with reasons why there's easily a reasonable doubt. I've acknowledged that the defendants stories have at least as many lies/inconsistencies / holes as the girl's does but the burden of proof is on the prosecution. I'm not taking Olding's barrister's word as gospel, I'm agreeing with his well made points.

[gallsman]

Lads, the door was open for 45 seconds. You know this for sure because Milltown mentioned it above. He hasn't pulled that out of his arse or anything so one of them must have had a stopwatch on the go and it's been leaked to him but not mentioned in court.

[yellowcard]

Do you mean to tell me Yellowcard that if someone went through your 2660 posts that everyone of them would present a balanced argument on the topic in question?

In this case I'm saying the verdict has to be not guilty and backing it up with reasons why there's easily a reasonable doubt. I've acknowledged that the defendants stories have at least as many lies/inconsistencies / holes as the girl's does but the burden of proof is on the prosecution. I'm not taking Olding's barrister's word as gospel, I'm agreeing with his well made points.

Fair enough and I've already stated that I personally struggle to get beyond the reasonable doubt but in saying that I have not been in court for 6 weeks and examined every minute detail of evidence, witnessed body language, studied similar cases etc etc so I really can't be certain either way. That's all I am saying, we just have to trust the jury to make the correct decision as they are best placed to decide on the innocence or guilt, not somebody reading 15 minutes of media reporting each day.

[Syferus]

Was the general consensus not that Jackson did ok?

I havent seen the media comment on whether he was good or bad. The lynch mob on here were going to say he was terrible regardless. There were certainly a lot more inconsistencies in the defence's evidence which is to be expected as there were 4 of them and everyone was drunk. There are enough gaps and contradictions between the girl's evidence and her earlier statements for PJ and Olding to almost certainly get off though. I thought she did sound coached in some of her comments. "I utterly refute everything you have just said" struck me as an unnatural response from a 19 year old but then she can hardly say "you're full of shit" in court either.

This is such a perfect crystallisation of your bullshít. You wade in using defence talking points, but in reality you don't even know the victim's age. And it's hard to think you really want to know either.

[David McKeown]

I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

Barrister's act in cases to ensure the evidence is tested to the fullest and in our system to try as far as possible to ensure that the decision arrived at is the correct one. It is not a counsel's role to decide on the guilt or innoncence of a defendant or to act less well for those they suspect may be guilty. Similarly it is not a barristers role to ensure their client gets acquitted at all costs. Their primary duty at all times is to the court.

[seafoid]

Lads, the door was open for 45 seconds. You know this for sure because Milltown mentioned it above. He hasn't pulled that out of his arse or anything so one of them must have had a stopwatch on the go and it's been leaked to him but not mentioned in court.

The witness said

Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

47m

"She said there was a bed in front of her. She said she saw Paddy Jackson on his knees thrusting into the complainant whose bum was up. She said Stuart Olding was propped up on some pillows at the top of the bed and the complainant's head was down towards his penis"

Which the boys denied


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

3h

Under re-examination, woman refutes Paddy Jackson's version of events. He denies ever having sexual intercourse with her. He says the height of what he did was "digitally penetrate" her while she was performing oral sex on Stuart Olding. She says: "that's incorrect"

Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

1h

She said she didn't get a view into the room but her friend turned to her after closing the door a few seconds after opening it and said "Oh my God, I've seen a threesome"

[Syferus]

I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

Barrister's act in cases to ensure the evidence is tested to the fullest and in our system to try as far as possible to ensure that the decision arrived at is the correct one. It is not a counsel's role to decide on the guilt or innoncence of a defendant or to act less well for those they suspect may be guilty. Similarly it is not a barristers role to ensure their client gets acquitted at all costs. Their primary duty at all times is to the court.

Oh come on David - that is applying the letter of the law over the murky reality and you must know that. If a defence solicitor is being paid thousands upon thousands of pounds by his client his de facto duty is bloody well obvious.

[David McKeown]

I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

Barrister's act in cases to ensure the evidence is tested to the fullest and in our system to try as far as possible to ensure that the decision arrived at is the correct one. It is not a counsel's role to decide on the guilt or innoncence of a defendant or to act less well for those they suspect may be guilty. Similarly it is not a barristers role to ensure their client gets acquitted at all costs. Their primary duty at all times is to the court.

Oh come on David - that is applying the letter of the law over the murky reality and you must know that. If a defence solicitor is being paid thousands upon thousands of pounds by his client his de facto duty is bloody well obvious.

I'm not a solicitor but I would refute that in its entirety. For a start it would be counter productive. You behave like that you get a reputation for it, your job becomes more difficult it gets harder to get future work.