The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

gallsman

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2018, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 18, 2018, 11:27:39 PM
You've just repeated the same mistake. She said the complainant did not seem distressed. She was asked, almost two years later, if this was still her recollection, and said yes, 100%.

That is her saying "yes, my recollection is 100% that she did not seem distressed" i.e. she does not recall it any differently now to how she did at the time. That is NOT the same as her saying "she was 100% not distressed."

See the difference?
Based on what she said then, you think she seen a rape?

What sort of question is that and how can I possibly answer it?

She saw a girl who did not appear, to her, to be in distress. It is impossible to draw a conclusion from that alone as to whether or not they raped her ffs

What "I think" off her evidence is that Jackson had penetrative sex with her and she was not visibly distressed or crying out for help. Again, it is impossible to conclude whether or not a rape occurred from that alone.

Milltown Row2

Quote from: gallsman on March 18, 2018, 11:47:14 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2018, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 18, 2018, 11:27:39 PM
You've just repeated the same mistake. She said the complainant did not seem distressed. She was asked, almost two years later, if this was still her recollection, and said yes, 100%.

That is her saying "yes, my recollection is 100% that she did not seem distressed" i.e. she does not recall it any differently now to how she did at the time. That is NOT the same as her saying "she was 100% not distressed."

See the difference?
Based on what she said then, you think she seen a rape?

What sort of question is that and how can I possibly answer it?

She saw a girl who did not appear, to her, to be in distress. It is impossible to draw a conclusion from that alone as to whether or not they raped her ffs

What "I think" off her evidence is that Jackson had penetrative sex with her and she was not visibly distressed or crying out for help. Again, it is impossible to conclude whether or not a rape occurred from that alone.

Do you think if you walked into that situation and seen what she saw based on her testimony, that you would be able to decide if it was rape or a threesome like she described?
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

gallsman

You're playing an absolute blinder with these questions tonight.

No, absolutely not - she walked in, saw the scene, was propositioned and walked out. She swears Jackson was having sex with her and that the complainant did not seem to be distressed. It is impossible to conclude definitively anything from that.

Milltown Row2

Quote from: gallsman on March 19, 2018, 12:05:34 AM
You're playing an absolute blinder with these questions tonight.

No, absolutely not - she walked in, saw the scene, was propositioned and walked out. She swears Jackson was having sex with her and that the complainant did not seem to be distressed. It is impossible to conclude definitively anything from that.

Ok she swears they were having sex not rape.

I hope the jury come to the right decision based on all the facts presented to them and not what we have to go on. If it's a guilty version then i hope they all get the what they deserve
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

David McKeown

Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2018, 11:35:26 PM
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/2008/1769/article/5

Quote
Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

What if any steps did Mr. Jackson and Mr. Olding take to ascertain whether the complainant consented?

None that I've seen anything on but again the jury can place what weight they deem appropriate on all the evidence they have heard. Be that from the prosecution or defence. They aren't limited to the evidence on the steps taken to ascertain consent.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Avondhu star

Quote from: gallsman on March 18, 2018, 11:47:14 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2018, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 18, 2018, 11:27:39 PM
You've just repeated the same mistake. She said the complainant did not seem distressed. She was asked, almost two years later, if this was still her recollection, and said yes, 100%.

That is her saying "yes, my recollection is 100% that she did not seem distressed" i.e. she does not recall it any differently now to how she did at the time. That is NOT the same as her saying "she was 100% not distressed."

See the difference?
Based on what she said then, you think she seen a rape?

What sort of question is that and how can I possibly answer it?

She saw a girl who did not appear, to her, to be in distress. It is impossible to draw a conclusion from that alone as to whether or not they raped her ffs

What "I think" off her evidence is that Jackson had penetrative sex with her and she was not visibly distressed or crying out for help. Again, it is impossible to conclude whether or not a rape occurred from that alone.

So we are back to beyond reasonable doubt. Cant see that being the decision
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

gallsman

On the limited information I've picked up from the reporting, I'd struggle to say I'm convinced they raped her beyond a reasonable doubt.

If it was a civil trial (which I guess there is a chance of happening), with its lower burden of proof, I could see a conviction.

magpie seanie

Biggest question I have is why did the defence put the lads on the stand (where any honest assessment will say they made asses of themselves). Why did they feel the need to take this risk? Perhaps they're not as confident of an acquittal as the "reasonable doubt is a high bar" brigade on here.

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 20, 2018, 09:48:17 AM
Biggest question I have is why did the defence put the lads on the stand (where any honest assessment will say they made asses of themselves). Why did they feel the need to take this risk? Perhaps they're not as confident of an acquittal as the "reasonable doubt is a high bar" brigade on here.

Whatever about the other 3 Jackson had to take the stand. It was his argument that he didn't actually have sex with her so he had to get that across. They were poor witnesses

Owen Brannigan

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 20, 2018, 09:59:01 AM

They were poor witnesses

Certainly appeared so compared to the composed, assertive and combative complainant who was operating at a different level of intelligence and maturity than the accused.  Little things like that stick in the minds of jurors, so long as they didn't find the complainant too sure of herself in dealing with 6 days of questioning.

Milltown Row2

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 20, 2018, 01:18:04 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 20, 2018, 09:59:01 AM

They were poor witnesses

Certainly appeared so compared to the composed, assertive and combative complainant who was operating at a different level of intelligence and maturity than the accused.  Little things like that stick in the minds of jurors, so long as they didn't find the complainant too sure of herself in dealing with 6 days of questioning.

Coached?
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Syferus

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2018, 01:37:18 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 20, 2018, 01:18:04 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 20, 2018, 09:59:01 AM

They were poor witnesses

Certainly appeared so compared to the composed, assertive and combative complainant who was operating at a different level of intelligence and maturity than the accused.  Little things like that stick in the minds of jurors, so long as they didn't find the complainant too sure of herself in dealing with 6 days of questioning.

Coached?

As opposed to two lads whose careers involved portraying an image to the public? They had every advantage in that regard and still came across terribly.

Where do you get off, lad?

Tony Baloney

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 20, 2018, 01:18:04 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 20, 2018, 09:59:01 AM

They were poor witnesses

Certainly appeared so compared to the composed, assertive and combative complainant who was operating at a different level of intelligence and maturity than the accused.  Little things like that stick in the minds of jurors, so long as they didn't find the complainant too sure of herself in dealing with 6 days of questioning.
Some people I have discussed it with said she was too cool so composure has some perceived disadvantages as well as advantages.

GetOverTheBar

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2018, 01:37:18 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 20, 2018, 01:18:04 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 20, 2018, 09:59:01 AM

They were poor witnesses

Certainly appeared so compared to the composed, assertive and combative complainant who was operating at a different level of intelligence and maturity than the accused.  Little things like that stick in the minds of jurors, so long as they didn't find the complainant too sure of herself in dealing with 6 days of questioning.

Coached?

If your parent's are solicitors, you'd like to think that you'd be well versed, shall we say.

Milltown Row2

Quote from: Syferus on March 20, 2018, 04:03:00 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2018, 01:37:18 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 20, 2018, 01:18:04 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 20, 2018, 09:59:01 AM

They were poor witnesses

Certainly appeared so compared to the composed, assertive and combative complainant who was operating at a different level of intelligence and maturity than the accused.  Little things like that stick in the minds of jurors, so long as they didn't find the complainant too sure of herself in dealing with 6 days of questioning.

Coached?

As opposed to two lads whose careers involved portraying an image to the public? They had every advantage in that regard and still came across terribly.

Where do you get off, lad?

Strip joints!  ;)
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea