The ulster rugby trial

[Tony Baloney]

I'd be curious to know how many posters have sat on a jury? We've had a legal perspective on what's going on but it'll be people from a non legal background who'll decide the outcome of this trial.

I sat on a trial 8 years ago, lasted about a week, armed robbery. 

Your man O'Donoghue was one of the barristers

guilty?

Yeah and as the case went on it was fairly obvious, we couldn't get one of the jurors to turn, we all gave reasons why we thought he was guilty, based on the evidence we heard, but this fella just kept saying "I don't think he did it". Always thought he knew the defendant or knew of him. So he was found guilty by majority.

The solicitor who briefed O'Donoughue probably had that juror bribed.....you know the way in the murky reality of it all someone is always on the take and it's as dodgy as hell.

The defendant wasn't rich otherwise he would have got off.

[AQMP]

I'd be curious to know how many posters have sat on a jury? We've had a legal perspective on what's going on but it'll be people from a non legal background who'll decide the outcome of this trial.

I was a juror in an assault case a few years ago.  About three of the jury had the attitude, "if he's up in court he must be guilty" - I kid you not, including the foreman! One woman said "Well the police wouldn't have arrested him if he hadn't done something"

Having said that it was a pretty straightforward case.  Guilty - unanimous.  It was hard to believe the defendant's version of events, he probably should have pleaded guilty.  Maybe in a small echo of this case, we didn't really believe his testimony and convicted even though the complainant's evidence wasn't 100% but it rang true.

Edit:  I'm 100% sure neither the complainant nor the defendant went to Methody!

[Orchard park]

If he did say it there was undoubtedly a tactic played. Frank is a very grounded down to earth man and wouldn't think like that at all.

Don't doubt that and agree that there must have been a reason, or the quote taken without context surrounding it, given how strange it sounds on its own. 
Prosecution perhaps focussed on the middle-class rugger buggers who thought they could take what they wanted, with the defence pointing out that there were people of similar background close by who, by virtue of their own upbringing, should/would not have been intimidated by them?  Without reading the full text, we'll never know.

i consider those involved to be from the privileged classes but maybe the middle class now encompasses those silver spoons also

They're as middle class as middle class can be. Jackson may be from south Belfast and have gone to methody but daddy's hardly a hedge fund billionaire .

Its not just the Jackson trial, most of the key components including the complainant are from a socio economic background well above middle class or else your concept of privileleged classes and mine are very different..........

[brokencrossbar1]

I'd be curious to know how many posters have sat on a jury? We've had a legal perspective on what's going on but it'll be people from a non legal background who'll decide the outcome of this trial.

I sat on a trial 8 years ago, lasted about a week, armed robbery. 

Your man O'Donoghue was one of the barristers

guilty?

Yeah and as the case went on it was fairly obvious, we couldn't get one of the jurors to turn, we all gave reasons why we thought he was guilty, based on the evidence we heard, but this fella just kept saying "I don't think he did it". Always thought he knew the defendant or knew of him. So he was found guilty by majority.

The solicitor who briefed O'Donoughue probably had that juror bribed.....you know the way in the murky reality of it all someone is always on the take and it's as dodgy as hell.

The defendant wasn't rich otherwise he would have got off.

Obviously not rich as he wouldn't have needed to commit an armed robbery....unless he was a rich adrenaline junkie who might be up to some shit like that!!

[brokencrossbar1]

In terms of a cover up here is an excerpt from Gavan Duffy now speaking for Harrison and it's been mybview the whole time

'In relation to the prosecution's theory that a story was cooked up between the four defendants at Soul Food café, Mr. Duffy QC asks why would two Ulster rugby players have gone to the busiest and smallest café on Ormeau Rd to do so?'

If I was trying to cover something up I'd have met in the privacy of my own house and sorted it out there, not in the middle of the bloody Orneau Road!!!

[passedit]

As a follow up to the jurors did anyone base their verdit on the 'plausibility' of ONE witness over another. I'm asking this as it seems to be the received wisdom on this case that it will come down to this. I did jury service (albeit nearly twenty years ago) and sat on 3 juries where the agreed position was we accepted the word of no witness however plausible without corroberation.

[brokencrossbar1]

Closing speeches now complete. Judges directions and then deliberation time for the jury. Big day tomorrow!!!

[AQMP]

In terms of a cover up here is an excerpt from Gavan Duffy now speaking for Harrison and it's been mybview the whole time

'In relation to the prosecution's theory that a story was cooked up between the four defendants at Soul Food café, Mr. Duffy QC asks why would two Ulster rugby players have gone to the busiest and smallest café on Ormeau Rd to do so?'

If I was trying to cover something up I'd have met in the privacy of my own house and sorted it out there, not in the middle of the bloody Orneau Road!!!

Clever double bluff!   Oh they're sneaky ones all right!

[Minder]

I'd be curious to know how many posters have sat on a jury? We've had a legal perspective on what's going on but it'll be people from a non legal background who'll decide the outcome of this trial.

I sat on a trial 8 years ago, lasted about a week, armed robbery. 

Your man O'Donoghue was one of the barristers

guilty?

Yeah and as the case went on it was fairly obvious, we couldn't get one of the jurors to turn, we all gave reasons why we thought he was guilty, based on the evidence we heard, but this fella just kept saying "I don't think he did it". Always thought he knew the defendant or knew of him. So he was found guilty by majority.

The solicitor who briefed O'Donoughue probably had that juror bribed.....you know the way in the murky reality of it all someone is always on the take and it's as dodgy as hell.

The defendant wasn't rich otherwise he would have got off.

Obviously not rich as he wouldn't have needed to commit an armed robbery....unless he was a rich adrenaline junkie who might be up to some shit like that!!

This is the case here, main thrust of his defence was he only had three fingers so couldn't hold a gun ! Turns out he only has three fingers as he was trying to make a pipe bomb and it blew up in his hand..........

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/judge-jails-robbery-pair-as-a-deterrent-28556395.html

[AQMP]

Closing speeches now complete. Judges directions and then deliberation time for the jury. Big day tomorrow!!!

The judge's direction could take another 8 weeks!

[brokencrossbar1]

Closing speeches now complete. Judges directions and then deliberation time for the jury. Big day tomorrow!!!

The judge's direction could take another 8 weeks!

Directions tomorrow and Monday. Deliberations begin Tuesday. Judge Smyth told them that already.

[AQMP]

Closing speeches now complete. Judges directions and then deliberation time for the jury. Big day tomorrow!!!

The judge's direction could take another 8 weeks!

Directions tomorrow and Monday. Deliberations begin Tuesday. Judge Smyth told them that already.

When does the GAA Board gives its verdict??

[brokencrossbar1]

I'd be curious to know how many posters have sat on a jury? We've had a legal perspective on what's going on but it'll be people from a non legal background who'll decide the outcome of this trial.

I sat on a trial 8 years ago, lasted about a week, armed robbery. 

Your man O'Donoghue was one of the barristers

guilty?

Yeah and as the case went on it was fairly obvious, we couldn't get one of the jurors to turn, we all gave reasons why we thought he was guilty, based on the evidence we heard, but this fella just kept saying "I don't think he did it". Always thought he knew the defendant or knew of him. So he was found guilty by majority.

The solicitor who briefed O'Donoughue probably had that juror bribed.....you know the way in the murky reality of it all someone is always on the take and it's as dodgy as hell.

The defendant wasn't rich otherwise he would have got off.

Obviously not rich as he wouldn't have needed to commit an armed robbery....unless he was a rich adrenaline junkie who might be up to some shit like that!!

This is the case here, main thrust of his defence was he only had three fingers so couldn't hold a gun ! Turns out he only has three fingers as he was trying to make a pipe bomb and it blew up in his hand..........

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/judge-jails-robbery-pair-as-a-deterrent-28556395.html

Chip off the da's block I'd say!!!

[Aristo 60]

Aye, get an oul poll up! 

[brokencrossbar1]

Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.