gaaboard.com

Non GAA Discussion => General discussion => Topic started by: caprea on February 01, 2018, 11:45:56 PM

Title: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on February 01, 2018, 11:45:56 PM
It was hijacking the rugby thread...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 12:08:30 AM
QuoteThere's two versions of what happened that night.one is consensual sex between three people,the other is the rape of a young woman by two men. I personally don't know what happened that night,so I won't make a judgement until all the facts are presented. What I don't understand is how those, such as syferus, are so sure they are guilty? The text messages mean nothing, indicate no guilt whatsoever.
   I hope they serve real time if they are guilty. But what happens if they are found not guilty? You'll have people condemning them as rapists who got away with it. Does that mean if you get accused of rape you're automatically a rapist?let the courts do their job for Christ sake

quoting east down gael from the rugby thread.  I agree with this - dont see how anyone can say 100% it was rape based on the evidence so far.  however according to syferus for having some sense and waiting to hear all the evidence (at which point I may form the opinion they are guilty) we are just cavemen.  Ironic from someone who wants a caveman like justice system - 1 days evidence on one side of the story - I've heard enough guilty over and done with

Evidence so far from what I have read

text msgs between them on whatsapp
doesnt make for good reading but enough to say rape - no for me

Taxi man account the girl was in hysterics
- yes that would lead you to think this was rape

Bruising/bleeding in vaginal area

- prosecution and Dr said consistent with trauma to the area but no indication if consensual - and others have said about mates who have had similar with wife so that doesnt guarantee rape for me.  Dont know if she had brusing on arms etc - not sure if that was mentioned in court.

Girl walked in but not reported in initial police interview -
seems a bit strange that one and puts me back on the fence personally atm.

I think the girl that walked in on it will be a key witness and as someone alluded to earlier if she is either a prosecution witness or a defence witness will be a big factor (assuming she is called as a witness of course)

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 12:12:13 AM
How much do you know about how rape victims' recollection of events is effected by the trauma of the event, Frank? Because to pretend like her not remembering details immediately is any sort of red flag highlights a serious lack of knowledge, nevermind empathy.

And to anyone not willing to read the tea leaves, what reason do you have to believe the victim may be lying and putting herself through this ringer?

Thanks.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 12:26:36 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 12:12:13 AM
How much do you know about how rape victims' recollection of events is effected by the trauma of the event, Frank? Because to pretend like her not remembering details immediately is any sort of red flag highlights a serious lack of knowledge, nevermind empathy.

And to anyone not willing to read the tea leaves, what reason do you have to believe the victim may be lying and putting herself through this ringer?

Thanks.

Again I'm not saying I don't believe the girl I personally think the two lads are guilty from what I've read and heard so far but there are many reasons why she may have decided to take this case forward without her allegations being true.

I also don't think the delay between it happening and her reporting it should be due any consideration by the jury.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on February 02, 2018, 12:29:52 AM
The girl who walked in is going to be a defence witness. It was on newstalk.

I think the physical evidence is key and saying this could be caused by consensual sex while true doesn't quite cover what I see in the physical evidence.

I have to be quite graphic here. If a rapist was lying on a girl and had her trousers down but couldn't penetrate because her legs were closed together he would have to open her legs forcefully, to do that the most effective way would be to knee her on the inside of the inner thigh to stun the leg and put his knee into keep her legs open. He would then have enough room to penetrate. The sex would not be smooth like normal sex because the girl would most likely be trying to force her legs shut and wouldn't be working in tandem with rapist, instead it would be a struggle from the girl that seems very possible to cause internal injuries.

So the physical injuries of a bruise on the thigh and bleeding on the vaginal wall are to me a big red flag.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 12:35:07 AM
The idea that someone who happened to see Jackson (who if she recognised presumably she knew owned the house) having sex in a bedroom would have such a good, long and scientific look to be able to garner the nuances of was the woman consenting to the act is incredible to me. What would you do in that situation? You'd be fûcking embarrassed and want to get out of dodge as fast as possible.

Is this witness a friend of the accused? That also would severely effect how much weight anyone will put on their testimony.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on February 02, 2018, 01:37:55 AM
It's a man-laden jury and depending on how the jury react to the defences witnesses these lads could get off yet. An unfortunate situation for all involved if it goes that way.

I've heard no conclusive evidence of guilt yet. In many ways there are striking resemblances to the Evans case, intoxication, 3rd party involvement, etc. I've a lot of sympathy for Ched Evans, he was wrongly convicted of a heinous crime and carried a label that will hang around him for most of his life.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 01:41:22 AM
Quote from: trileacman on February 02, 2018, 01:37:55 AM
It's a man-laden jury and depending on how the jury react to the defences witnesses these lads could get off yet. An unfortunate situation for all involved if it goes that way.

I've heard no conclusive evidence of guilt yet. In many ways there are striking resemblances to the Evans case, intoxication, 3rd party involvement, etc. I've a lot of sympathy for Ched Evans, he was wrongly convicted of a heinous crime and carried a label that will hang around him for most of his life.

The comparisons to the Evans case end sharp enough. How many rapes don't include intoxication, by the way?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 07:00:51 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 12:35:07 AM
The idea that someone who happened to see Jackson (who if she recognised presumably she knew owned the house) having sex in a bedroom would have such a good, long and scientific look to be able to garner the nuances of was the woman consenting to the act is incredible to me. What would you do in that situation? You'd be fûcking embarrassed and want to get out of dodge as fast as possible.

Is this witness a friend of the accused? That also would severely effect how much weight anyone will put on their testimony.

The point is you know nothing about this witness testimony yet as do none of us but you have your mind made up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 07:03:27 AM
Quote from: caprea on February 02, 2018, 12:29:52 AM
The girl who walked in is going to be a defence witness. It was on newstalk.

I think the physical evidence is key and saying this could be caused by consensual sex while true doesn't quite cover what I see in the physical evidence.

I have to be quite graphic here. If a rapist was lying on a girl and had her trousers down but couldn't penetrate because her legs were closed together he would have to open her legs forcefully, to do that the most effective way would be to knee her on the inside of the inner thigh to stun the leg and put his knee into keep her legs open. He would then have enough room to penetrate. The sex would not be smooth like normal sex because the girl would most likely be trying to force her legs shut and wouldn't be working in tandem with rapist, instead it would be a struggle from the girl that seems very possible to cause internal injuries.

So the physical injuries of a bruise on the thigh and bleeding on the vaginal wall are to me a big red flag.

I didn't read anywhere about bruising on thighs etc caprea...have you got a link to where they mentioned that.  If there was bruising yo thighs or other areas of her body I would be back on the they are guilty but as I say I didn't read that in the report from case I've read.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 07:23:55 AM
The guy is a rugby player, a big lad I'd say, 15 stone? I'd say he'd bruise most people, again I'm not taking sides. (Need to put disclaimer in every time for the crusaders)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 02, 2018, 07:28:34 AM
A threesome is more like a porn setup. I wonder will the prosecution get fantasy personal with the lads. The other thing is the consistency of the stories.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on February 02, 2018, 07:36:23 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 07:03:27 AM
Quote from: caprea on February 02, 2018, 12:29:52 AM
The girl who walked in is going to be a defence witness. It was on newstalk.

I think the physical evidence is key and saying this could be caused by consensual sex while true doesn't quite cover what I see in the physical evidence.

I have to be quite graphic here. If a rapist was lying on a girl and had her trousers down but couldn't penetrate because her legs were closed together he would have to open her legs forcefully, to do that the most effective way would be to knee her on the inside of the inner thigh to stun the leg and put his knee into keep her legs open. He would then have enough room to penetrate. The sex would not be smooth like normal sex because the girl would most likely be trying to force her legs shut and wouldn't be working in tandem with rapist, instead it would be a struggle from the girl that seems very possible to cause internal injuries.

So the physical injuries of a bruise on the thigh and bleeding on the vaginal wall are to me a big red flag.

I didn't read anywhere about bruising on thighs etc caprea...have you got a link to where they mentioned that.  If there was bruising yo thighs or other areas of her body I would be back on the they are guilty but as I say I didn't read that in the report from case I've read.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/it-was-like-a-merrygoround-at-a-carnival-ireland-rugby-stars-accused-of-rape-boasted-about-sex-on-whatsapp-36547048.html

She said she had bruising on thighs.....but then it says further down that medical personnel observed bruising on her genitals...so it could be from sex rather than how I originally read it as a knee etc to the inner thigh to get her legs open.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 07:38:45 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 12:26:36 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 12:12:13 AM
How much do you know about how rape victims' recollection of events is effected by the trauma of the event, Frank? Because to pretend like her not remembering details immediately is any sort of red flag highlights a serious lack of knowledge, nevermind empathy.

And to anyone not willing to read the tea leaves, what reason do you have to believe the victim may be lying and putting herself through this ringer?

Thanks.

Again I'm not saying I don't believe the girl I personally think the two lads are guilty from what I've read and heard so far but there are many reasons why she may have decided to take this case forward without her allegations being true.

I also don't think the delay between it happening and her reporting it should be due any consideration by the jury.
I actually thought she went to the police quite promptly - everything I've read on this *so far* points towards a horrendous attack carried out against this girl. She went for morning after pill, referred to Rowan centre then police. How many rape victims I wonder are in the right frame of mind to march straight to the police station to go through that whole ordeal first thing the next morning? The timeline of the messages to her friends the next morning - did she just decide between 5am and 9am that she was going to fabricate a rape claim? The fact it has got to trial as well sends out a pretty bleak signal in itself that something untoward has happened. The defence witness who walked in hopefully will not be as pivotal, she was asked did she want to "join in", not exactly the language you expect from a rapist midway through the act so I would expect there to be an argument of implied consent somewhere from the defence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on February 02, 2018, 07:49:50 AM
I don't think it's really like the ched Evans case at all to be honest.

The girl didn't even know originally she had sex with anyone in the ched Evans case. She just woke up in a hotel room and didn't know how she got there.

Think what happened here is more clear cut from the complainant's point of view although not completely clear cut.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 07:51:49 AM
Quote from: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 07:38:45 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 12:26:36 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 12:12:13 AM
How much do you know about how rape victims' recollection of events is effected by the trauma of the event, Frank? Because to pretend like her not remembering details immediately is any sort of red flag highlights a serious lack of knowledge, nevermind empathy.

And to anyone not willing to read the tea leaves, what reason do you have to believe the victim may be lying and putting herself through this ringer?

Thanks.

Again I'm not saying I don't believe the girl I personally think the two lads are guilty from what I've read and heard so far but there are many reasons why she may have decided to take this case forward without her allegations being true.

I also don't think the delay between it happening and her reporting it should be due any consideration by the jury.
I actually thought she went to the police quite promptly - everything I've read on this *so far* points towards a horrendous attack carried out against this girl. She went for morning after pill, referred to Rowan centre then police. How many rape victims I wonder are in the right frame of mind to march straight to the police station to go through that whole ordeal first thing the next morning? The timeline of the messages to her friends the next morning - did she just decide between 5am and 9am that she was going to fabricate a rape claim? The fact it has got to trial as well sends out a pretty bleak signal in itself that something untoward has happened. The defence witness who walked in hopefully will not be as pivotal, she was asked did she want to "join in", not exactly the language you expect from a rapist midway through the act so I would expect there to be an argument of implied consent somewhere from the defence.

Just to clarify what I read is that she went to the Rowan centre or else the police sent her there.  And she didn't go for the morning after pill herself...she was given it in the Rowan centre which would be standard protocol for that centre as well as carrying out the Dr examination
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 08:02:14 AM
QuoteAfter being persuaded by friends, the woman attended the Brook Clinic in Belfast, where she was given the morning after pill and spoke to a counsellor.

She was then advised to go to the Rowan Centre - a sexual assault referral centre in Antrim, where she underwent a medical examination.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ulster-rugby-will-vouch-for-them-rape-claim-student-reluctant-to-report-jackson-and-olding-court-hears-36556399.html

QuoteShe confided in two friends and after attending a rape crisis centre in Belfast, decided to go to the police.


https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/woman-allegedly-raped-rugby-stars-14228070
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 02, 2018, 08:19:54 AM
Many have pointed out snidely that there's lots on here willing to convict without hearing all the evidence. Conversely, it's easy to see there are also loads on here who are really hoping these lads are not convicted and making the case for them. I'd ask those guys (and it does seem to be guys) - if it were your daughter, or wife, or girlfriend......what would you think then? Would you post the same rubbish like "why wait 2 days".......especially when she told her friends within hours?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 08:24:02 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 02, 2018, 08:19:54 AM
Many have pointed out snidely that there's lots on here willing to convict without hearing all the evidence. Conversely, it's easy to see there are also loads on here who are really hoping these lads are not convicted and making the case for them. I'd ask those guys (and it does seem to be guys) - if it were your daughter, or wife, or girlfriend......what would you think then? Would you post the same rubbish like "why wait 2 days".......especially when she told her friends within hours?

I'd don't think it's snide to wait to hear all the evidence.  And I personally haven't posted anything about how long she waited to go to the police..utterly irrelevant if she waited 2 months or went that morning.  And its stupid to just say what if was your wife daughter etc.  Of course if it was personalized you would be 100% sure of their guilt.  But the point of a jury is to take out the personal aspect of it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Il Bomber Destro on February 02, 2018, 08:32:54 AM
Not surprised this sort of carryon exists within Irish rugby.

What's been heard so far does not look very good at all for the defendants.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Walter Cronc on February 02, 2018, 08:44:04 AM
Back to the inbred thread bomber!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 02, 2018, 08:45:58 AM
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on February 02, 2018, 08:32:54 AM
Not surprised this sort of carryon exists within Irish rugby.

What's been heard so far does not look very good at all for the defendants.

Not sure how you can say that, but then again rationale is limited with a lot of posters in these types of threads.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 09:18:14 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 08:24:02 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 02, 2018, 08:19:54 AM
Many have pointed out snidely that there's lots on here willing to convict without hearing all the evidence. Conversely, it's easy to see there are also loads on here who are really hoping these lads are not convicted and making the case for them. I'd ask those guys (and it does seem to be guys) - if it were your daughter, or wife, or girlfriend......what would you think then? Would you post the same rubbish like "why wait 2 days".......especially when she told her friends within hours?

I'd don't think it's snide to wait to hear all the evidence.  And I personally haven't posted anything about how long she waited to go to the police..utterly irrelevant if she waited 2 months or went that morning.  And its stupid to just say what if was your wife daughter etc.  Of course if it was personalized you would be 100% sure of their guilt.  But the point of a jury is to take out the personal aspect of it.
It's very easy to take sides and from reading social media I've seen the full range of stupidity and crassness from "If she was being raped why didn't she scream the house down instead of chowing down on Olding" to "I hope these rapist c***ts are raped in jail".

For me there is reasonable doubt and there they should get off based on what I've read but I'm not in court and there is a long way to go. As to Seanies comment that people don't want to see them convicted... If they are guilty then they should be convicted if they're not they shouldn't be.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on February 02, 2018, 09:19:53 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 02, 2018, 08:45:58 AM
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on February 02, 2018, 08:32:54 AM
Not surprised this sort of carryon exists within Irish rugby.

What's been heard so far does not look very good at all for the defendants.

Not sure how you can say that, but then again rationale is limited with a lot of posters in these types of threads.

I would urge caution on replying to that poster. It will take this thread down a bad road.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 02, 2018, 09:31:43 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 09:18:14 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 08:24:02 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 02, 2018, 08:19:54 AM
Many have pointed out snidely that there's lots on here willing to convict without hearing all the evidence. Conversely, it's easy to see there are also loads on here who are really hoping these lads are not convicted and making the case for them. I'd ask those guys (and it does seem to be guys) - if it were your daughter, or wife, or girlfriend......what would you think then? Would you post the same rubbish like "why wait 2 days".......especially when she told her friends within hours?

I'd don't think it's snide to wait to hear all the evidence.  And I personally haven't posted anything about how long she waited to go to the police..utterly irrelevant if she waited 2 months or went that morning.  And its stupid to just say what if was your wife daughter etc.  Of course if it was personalized you would be 100% sure of their guilt.  But the point of a jury is to take out the personal aspect of it.
It's very easy to take sides and from reading social media I've seen the full range of stupidity and crassness from "If she was being raped why didn't she scream the house down instead of chowing down on Olding" to "I hope these rapist c***ts are raped in jail".

For me there is reasonable doubt and there they should get off based on what I've read but I'm not in court and there is a long way to go. As to Seanies comment that people don't want to see them convicted... If they are guilty then they should be convicted if they're not they shouldn't be.

In my opinion the whole thing hinges in this girl that walked in during the middle of it, if she says it didn't look like an attack. That's the end of it all right there. She's the only 'neutral' witness. Her testimony holds the key to the whole thing.

From what we've heard so far, she's walked in and said "oh", Jackson has allegedly asked did she want to join, which she said no and walked out. When this phase is fleshed out the case will be come clearer - If she's steamed and can't remember. There will be an element of reasonable doubt as quoted post.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: shezam on February 02, 2018, 09:40:06 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 02, 2018, 09:31:43 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 09:18:14 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 08:24:02 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 02, 2018, 08:19:54 AM
Many have pointed out snidely that there's lots on here willing to convict without hearing all the evidence. Conversely, it's easy to see there are also loads on here who are really hoping these lads are not convicted and making the case for them. I'd ask those guys (and it does seem to be guys) - if it were your daughter, or wife, or girlfriend......what would you think then? Would you post the same rubbish like "why wait 2 days".......especially when she told her friends within hours?

I'd don't think it's snide to wait to hear all the evidence.  And I personally haven't posted anything about how long she waited to go to the police..utterly irrelevant if she waited 2 months or went that morning.  And its stupid to just say what if was your wife daughter etc.  Of course if it was personalized you would be 100% sure of their guilt.  But the point of a jury is to take out the personal aspect of it.
It's very easy to take sides and from reading social media I've seen the full range of stupidity and crassness from "If she was being raped why didn't she scream the house down instead of chowing down on Olding" to "I hope these rapist c***ts are raped in jail".

For me there is reasonable doubt and there they should get off based on what I've read but I'm not in court and there is a long way to go. As to Seanies comment that people don't want to see them convicted... If they are guilty then they should be convicted if they're not they shouldn't be.

In my opinion the whole thing hinges in this girl that walked in during the middle of it, if she says it didn't look like an attack. That's the end of it all right there. She's the only 'neutral' witness. Her testimony holds the key to the whole thing.

From what we've heard so far, she's walked in and said "oh", Jackson has allegedly asked did she want to join, which she said no and walked out. When this phase is fleshed out the case will be come clearer - If she's steamed and can't remember. There will be an element of reasonable doubt as quoted post.

Can you explain what an attack is supposed to look like? Plus she never seen what went on before she walked in.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 09:52:24 AM
Given the high profile cases in the UK at the minute where exonerating evidence was "missed" by the cops or wasn't handed to the defence, it is impossible to scream "guilty" or "innocent" on the basis of a few text messages.

Just let the trial play out and we'll see what emerges.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 02, 2018, 09:57:12 AM
Quote from: shezam on February 02, 2018, 09:40:06 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 02, 2018, 09:31:43 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 09:18:14 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 08:24:02 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 02, 2018, 08:19:54 AM
Many have pointed out snidely that there's lots on here willing to convict without hearing all the evidence. Conversely, it's easy to see there are also loads on here who are really hoping these lads are not convicted and making the case for them. I'd ask those guys (and it does seem to be guys) - if it were your daughter, or wife, or girlfriend......what would you think then? Would you post the same rubbish like "why wait 2 days".......especially when she told her friends within hours?

I'd don't think it's snide to wait to hear all the evidence.  And I personally haven't posted anything about how long she waited to go to the police..utterly irrelevant if she waited 2 months or went that morning.  And its stupid to just say what if was your wife daughter etc.  Of course if it was personalized you would be 100% sure of their guilt.  But the point of a jury is to take out the personal aspect of it.
It's very easy to take sides and from reading social media I've seen the full range of stupidity and crassness from "If she was being raped why didn't she scream the house down instead of chowing down on Olding" to "I hope these rapist c***ts are raped in jail".

For me there is reasonable doubt and there they should get off based on what I've read but I'm not in court and there is a long way to go. As to Seanies comment that people don't want to see them convicted... If they are guilty then they should be convicted if they're not they shouldn't be.

In my opinion the whole thing hinges in this girl that walked in during the middle of it, if she says it didn't look like an attack. That's the end of it all right there. She's the only 'neutral' witness. Her testimony holds the key to the whole thing.

From what we've heard so far, she's walked in and said "oh", Jackson has allegedly asked did she want to join, which she said no and walked out. When this phase is fleshed out the case will be come clearer - If she's steamed and can't remember. There will be an element of reasonable doubt as quoted post.

Can you explain what an attack is supposed to look like? Plus she never seen what went on before she walked in.

It's fairly standard stuff in any trial, she'll be asked did it look to her as if there was any sign of aggression or discomfort, in her opinion did it look consensual? How long was she in the room? Did the lady in question react in any way to her being in the room? (I think I've read she covered herself up? Open to correction), if/when she covered up when you were in the room, why do you think she didn't instead ask you for help? Did the lady look in any sign of distress? Did she hear anything to signify distress before entering the room? Did she hear anything that prompted her to come up and check in on the room initially?

These are unpleasant questions, it's an unpleasant situation. I'm not saying who's right and wrong please don't think that the above is in any way defending Jackson/Olding because it's literally day 3 of a 5 week trial. There is a lot of information to come and considering the threshold of 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a criminal case. This maybe key in my opinon, that's my point.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 10:06:43 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 09:52:24 AM
Given the high profile cases in the UK at the minute where exonerating evidence was "missed" by the cops or wasn't handed to the defence, it is impossible to scream "guilty" or "innocent" on the basis of a few text messages.

Just let the trial play out and we'll see what emerges.

+1
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Captain Scarlet on February 02, 2018, 10:12:24 AM
I havent looked at the rugby thread enough but seeing as this is standalone. What are the view on Best and henderson going to the trial?
Is that not ridiculous the week of a match to be going there, even in your own time?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 10:16:05 AM
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on February 02, 2018, 08:32:54 AM
Not surprised this sort of carryon exists within Irish rugby.
Really? Rugby is conservative. It's widely believed these boys will not play for Ulster again, even if found not guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 10:16:43 AM
Are there any solicitors on the forum?

In the discussing the case in this manner on a public forum, are many posters not being prejudicial? The papers are only presenting the facts not offering opinion for a very good reason. If any juror read this forum you could run the risk of the trail collapsing. So when some gobshite has these guys hung drawn and quartered on day 1 of a 5 week trial that person could be doing more harm than good and if they are are guilty justice might not be served.

We as a forum need to be cognitive of our reach we are not in the bubble we think we are, these are peoples lives (all in tatters and their families as well, regardless of the verdict for both the accused and the victim) we are discussing and should refrain from offering opinion until the trial reaches conclusion.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 10:17:41 AM
Quote from: Captain Scarlet on February 02, 2018, 10:12:24 AM
I havent looked at the rugby thread enough but seeing as this is standalone. What are the view on Best and henderson going to the trial?
Is that not ridiculous the week of a match to be going there, even in your own time?

Shouldn't have been there IMO a few days before a massive game away to France
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: armaghniac on February 02, 2018, 10:18:51 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 02, 2018, 09:57:12 AM
It's fairly standard stuff in any trial, she'll be asked did it look to her as if there was any sign of aggression or discomfort, in her opinion did it look consensual? How long was she in the room? Did the lady in question react in any way to her being in the room? (I think I've read she covered herself up? Open to correction), if/when she covered up when you were in the room, why do you think she didn't instead ask you for help? Did the lady look in any sign of distress? Did she hear anything to signify distress before entering the room? Did she hear anything that prompted her to come up and check in on the room initially?

These are unpleasant questions, it's an unpleasant situation. I'm not saying who's right and wrong please don't think that the above is in any way defending Jackson/Olding because it's literally day 3 of a 5 week trial. There is a lot of information to come and considering the threshold of 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a criminal case. This maybe key in my opinon, that's my point.

It is very difficult to prove rape when there is a question of consensual sex, given the requirements of criminal proof.
The woman entering the room might well prove decisive.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 10:26:23 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: rosnarun on February 02, 2018, 10:27:10 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 10:17:41 AM
Quote from: Captain Scarlet on February 02, 2018, 10:12:24 AM
I havent looked at the rugby thread enough but seeing as this is standalone. What are the view on Best and henderson going to the trial?
Is that not ridiculous the week of a match to be going there, even in your own time?

Shouldn't have been there IMO a few days before a massive game away to France
yes because the game in france is the important thing here,

they were there to support their friend  and I don't suppose they have any more idea wheter they are guilty or innocent than any one else.
at what stage of a court case would you abandon your friends if you thought it looked bad on you?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 10:30:15 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 10:16:43 AM
Are there any solicitors on the forum?

In the discussing the case in this manner on a public forum, are many posters not being prejudicial? The papers are only presenting the facts not offering opinion for a very good reason. If any juror read this forum you could run the risk of the trail collapsing. So when some gobshite has these guys hung drawn and quartered on day 1 of a 5 week trial that person could be doing more harm than good and if they are are guilty justice might not be served.

We as a forum need to be cognitive of our reach we are not in the bubble we think we are, these are peoples lives (all in tatters and their families as well, regardless of the verdict for both the accused and the victim) we are discussing and should refrain from offering opinion until the trial reaches conclusion.
Honestly think jurors will be privy to much more information than we the general public have, and in that sense I doubt they'd be influenced by anything they read on GAAboard. In any case I'd say they'd be instructed to avoid as much as possible reading about the case, especially on such forums as this, and they will be discussing it among themselves for the next month so I'd say they'll get their fill of it there.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on February 02, 2018, 10:31:35 AM
What is the actual law in terms of what is deemed consensual when alcohol has been consumed. I'm not talking about if the woman is paralytic which is clear, but if the woman is "just" drunk. i.e does something she would never do when sober? I would say a lot of people on here have had a few "encounters" that would not have happened if both parties had been sober.

As far as the actual case goes it looks bad for those guys on the basis of the evidence presented so far. Obviously more to come from both sides but there will be some pretty grim testimony in court when the witnesses/accused take the stand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 10:33:15 AM
Quote from: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 10:30:15 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 10:16:43 AM
Are there any solicitors on the forum?

In the discussing the case in this manner on a public forum, are many posters not being prejudicial? The papers are only presenting the facts not offering opinion for a very good reason. If any juror read this forum you could run the risk of the trail collapsing. So when some gobshite has these guys hung drawn and quartered on day 1 of a 5 week trial that person could be doing more harm than good and if they are are guilty justice might not be served.

We as a forum need to be cognitive of our reach we are not in the bubble we think we are, these are peoples lives (all in tatters and their families as well, regardless of the verdict for both the accused and the victim) we are discussing and should refrain from offering opinion until the trial reaches conclusion.
Honestly think jurors will be privy to much more information than we the general public have, and in that sense I doubt they'd be influenced by anything they read on GAAboard. In any case I'd say they'd be instructed to avoid as much as possible reading about the case, especially on such forums as this, and they will be discussing it among themselves for the next month so I'd say they'll get their fill of it there.

That's the first thing the judge instructed the jury - (as well as telling them they are the only people who will see and hear all the evidence)

The judge also warned the jury to ignore press reports on the trial, saying it was likely that there will be "a lot of press interest", while also cautioning them not to conduct any research into individuals or anything to do with the trial.

She said: "It would be wrong and it would be in breach of your oath or affirmation if you do,"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 02, 2018, 10:34:30 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 10:26:23 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Nail on the head. They should have dealt with this well in advance. They're nowhere near as professional as they pretend to be.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 02, 2018, 10:36:26 AM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 10:41:03 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 10:26:23 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Don't be ridiculous

Of course he could comment on it but, if he criticised either of them for doing so, the defence/prosecution could use his status as Irish head coach to paint any criticism as implying something else.

If people want this case to stick and not collapse Schmidt did the right thing.

Stupid question to asking him to comment on a live trial. Journalists can be stupid.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Walter Cronc on February 02, 2018, 10:46:33 AM
Would Best/Henderson have sought permission from Schmidt to attend the trial? Or is it a case of do what you like ( within reason) on the day off?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 10:41:03 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 10:26:23 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Don't be ridiculous

Of course he could comment on it but, if he criticised either of them for doing so, the defence/prosecution could use his status as Irish head coach to paint any criticism as implying something else.

If people want this case to stick and not collapse Schmidt did the right thing.

Stupid question to asking him to comment on a live trial. Journalists can be stupid.

This is obviously too close to home for you Dinny as there's nothing ridiculous about it. As for the whole "could prejudice the case" spiel, we're perfectly entitled to discuss it and debate the merits of the case

He was not asked about a live trial, he was asked about the decision of his captain and another player to attend said trial. It was a perfectly valid question from a journalism perspective and, as I said, one he completely whiffed on.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 10:57:17 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 10:41:03 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 10:26:23 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Don't be ridiculous

Of course he could comment on it but, if he criticised either of them for doing so, the defence/prosecution could use his status as Irish head coach to paint any criticism as implying something else.

If people want this case to stick and not collapse Schmidt did the right thing.

Stupid question to asking him to comment on a live trial. Journalists can be stupid.

This is obviously too close to home for you Dinny as there's nothing ridiculous about it. As for the whole "could prejudice the case" spiel, we're perfectly entitled to discuss it and debate the merits of the case

He was not asked about a live trial, he was asked about the decision of his captain and another player to attend said trial. It was a perfectly valid question from a journalism perspective and, as I said, one he completely whiffed on.

What possible answer could he have given that wouldn't have been jumped on either way??

He sidestepped it so as to cause the least fuss which is what he should have done! Personally I don't think the lads sought permission from IRFU to go otherwise they'd have been told to stay well away I think. I don't think they did anything wrong but then you don't have to in todays world the appearance is enough.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 02, 2018, 11:01:59 AM
As much is being made of the girl who entered the room and what her testimony reveals I think Paddy may be on a sticky wicket if what the girls says is true, that she and Paddy had consensual kissing in the bedroom, Paddy tried his luck and was brushed off by the girl who proceeded to go downstairs.
It was only then when she went to leave and realised her handbag was up in the room and went to get it that Paddy tried it on the second time in what she describes as a very forceful manner.

I'm sure the prosecution will go after him on this. If she didn't consent to sex the first time, what would have made Paddy think that the second time that she had?



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 11:02:23 AM
He was asked directly whether Best had consulted with him before attending the trial and be refused to answer. It's a simple yes or no question
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: armaghniac on February 02, 2018, 11:09:54 AM
Quote from: TabClear on February 02, 2018, 10:31:35 AM
What is the actual law in terms of what is deemed consensual when alcohol has been consumed. I'm not talking about if the woman is paralytic which is clear, but if the woman is "just" drunk. i.e does something she would never do when sober? I would say a lot of people on here have had a few "encounters" that would not have happened if both parties had been sober.

There is a difference between some drink taken which reduces inhibitions and might lead someone to do something which they would not do at another time and an amount of drink taken which means that the person cannot defend themselves or articulate their wishes in the matter.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Il Bomber Destro on February 02, 2018, 11:13:33 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 02, 2018, 08:45:58 AM
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on February 02, 2018, 08:32:54 AM
Not surprised this sort of carryon exists within Irish rugby.

What's been heard so far does not look very good at all for the defendants.

Not sure how you can say that, but then again rationale is limited with a lot of posters in these types of threads.

There is precedent here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2385270/Ireland-rugby-sex-scandal--threesome-Dublin-night-out.html
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 11:14:27 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 10:41:03 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 10:26:23 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Don't be ridiculous

Of course he could comment on it but, if he criticised either of them for doing so, the defence/prosecution could use his status as Irish head coach to paint any criticism as implying something else.

If people want this case to stick and not collapse Schmidt did the right thing.

Stupid question to asking him to comment on a live trial. Journalists can be stupid.

This is obviously too close to home for you Dinny as there's nothing ridiculous about it. As for the whole "could prejudice the case" spiel, we're perfectly entitled to discuss it and debate the merits of the case

He was not asked about a live trial, he was asked about the decision of his captain and another player to attend said trial. It was a perfectly valid question from a journalism perspective and, as I said, one he completely whiffed on.

No Schmidt is a senior figure in the organisation that employs Henderson, Best and both the accused in a "Live" Trial. Anything he says can be misconstrued by either the defence or the prosecution, so when he says it's a legal matter he is right. If people want justice then asking Schmidt stupid questions that could lead to a collapse is not helpful and pretty stupid.

Henderson and Best were there in a private capacity which is quite frankly their business, what makes the public think they have an entitled to question people supporting their friends when their friends have not been found guilty of anything. This isn't the same as Kimmage, Cusack and Walsh supporting the pedophile Humphries after he was found guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on February 02, 2018, 11:18:17 AM
There was nothing wrong with best and Henderson attending. It's only a problem if you've already condemned the accused as guilty which so many on here have done.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on February 02, 2018, 11:20:33 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 02, 2018, 11:09:54 AM
Quote from: TabClear on February 02, 2018, 10:31:35 AM
What is the actual law in terms of what is deemed consensual when alcohol has been consumed. I'm not talking about if the woman is paralytic which is clear, but if the woman is "just" drunk. i.e does something she would never do when sober? I would say a lot of people on here have had a few "encounters" that would not have happened if both parties had been sober.

There is a difference between some drink taken which reduces inhibitions and might lead someone to do something which they would not do at another time and an amount of drink taken which means that the person cannot defend themselves or articulate their wishes in the matter.

I suppose thats what I'm getting at. My reading of your post is that it is pretty similar to mine, i.e. if one party is paralytic drunk its fairly clear but if someone does something they later regret because they are drunk thats different. The problem juries are going to have is that how do you define the line between the two from a legal perspective as its so subjective and dependent on individual temperament and tolerance to alcohol. I'm not implying anything into this particular case by the way, I have no idea if alcohol played a part or not, just pointing out one of the major issues as I see it in cases like this.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 02, 2018, 11:22:03 AM
Quote from: trileacman on February 02, 2018, 11:18:17 AM
There was nothing wrong with best and Henderson attending. It's only a problem if you've already condemned the accused as guilty which so many on here have done.

Mickey Harte would probably agree.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 02, 2018, 11:42:54 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 11:14:27 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 10:41:03 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 10:26:23 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Don't be ridiculous

Of course he could comment on it but, if he criticised either of them for doing so, the defence/prosecution could use his status as Irish head coach to paint any criticism as implying something else.

If people want this case to stick and not collapse Schmidt did the right thing.

Stupid question to asking him to comment on a live trial. Journalists can be stupid.

This is obviously too close to home for you Dinny as there's nothing ridiculous about it. As for the whole "could prejudice the case" spiel, we're perfectly entitled to discuss it and debate the merits of the case

He was not asked about a live trial, he was asked about the decision of his captain and another player to attend said trial. It was a perfectly valid question from a journalism perspective and, as I said, one he completely whiffed on.

No Schmidt is a senior figure in the organisation that employs Henderson, Best and both the accused in a "Live" Trial. Anything he says can be misconstrued by either the defence or the prosecution, so when he says it's a legal matter he is right. If people want justice then asking Schmidt stupid questions that could lead to a collapse is not helpful and pretty stupid.

Henderson and Best were there in a private capacity which is quite frankly their business, what makes the public think they have an entitled to question people supporting their friends when their friends have not been found guilty of anything. This isn't the same as Kimmage, Cusack and Walsh supporting the pedophile Humphries after he was found guilty.
I actually think yous are both right.  The journalist was perfectly entitled to ask the question, such is the public interest, and Schmidt was perfectly entitled to say it was legal matter and he is not discussing it.  I think that was the right way to handle it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GJL on February 02, 2018, 11:50:52 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 10:36:26 AM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 02, 2018, 11:53:35 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 11:14:27 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 10:41:03 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 10:26:23 AM
In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Don't be ridiculous

Of course he could comment on it but, if he criticised either of them for doing so, the defence/prosecution could use his status as Irish head coach to paint any criticism as implying something else.

If people want this case to stick and not collapse Schmidt did the right thing.

Stupid question to asking him to comment on a live trial. Journalists can be stupid.

This is obviously too close to home for you Dinny as there's nothing ridiculous about it. As for the whole "could prejudice the case" spiel, we're perfectly entitled to discuss it and debate the merits of the case

He was not asked about a live trial, he was asked about the decision of his captain and another player to attend said trial. It was a perfectly valid question from a journalism perspective and, as I said, one he completely whiffed on.

No Schmidt is a senior figure in the organisation that employs Henderson, Best and both the accused in a "Live" Trial. Anything he says can be misconstrued by either the defence or the prosecution, so when he says it's a legal matter he is right. If people want justice then asking Schmidt stupid questions that could lead to a collapse is not helpful and pretty stupid.

Henderson and Best were there in a private capacity which is quite frankly their business, what makes the public think they have an entitled to question people supporting their friends when their friends have not been found guilty of anything. This isn't the same as Kimmage, Cusack and Walsh supporting the pedophile Humphries after he was found guilty.

I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways. Best is the captain of the Ireland mens rugby team, the captain of Ulster, the captain of the two accused in their professional lives. In the week of a huge 6 nations game I think it shows amazingly poor judgement at best.

Schmidt was probably gagged as there's huge paranoia over trials collapsing etc. So while I think he probably could have said something I wouldn't beat him up for not doing it. What I would take issue with is (a) him and the IRFU giving permission or (b) him and the IRFU not anticipating this happening and stopping it.

This is regardless of whether you think they're guilty or not. They've been stood down from playing while this goes on, public displays of support should not be forthcoming either.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 02, 2018, 12:03:44 PM
I don't disagree with the poor judgement but Best is not responsible in any capacity, unlike Schmidt, for the employment of Jackson and Olding, Captain is a role within a team not a senior manager or even a line-manager.

Anyway I hope justice is served in court and not on a kangaroo court.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 02, 2018, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: GJL on February 02, 2018, 11:50:52 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 10:36:26 AM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

She didn't connect going into the rugby player's bedroom with danger.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 12:14:05 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: GJL on February 02, 2018, 11:50:52 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 10:36:26 AM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

She didn't connect going into the rugby player's bedroom with danger.

Jesus f**king wept.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 12:17:22 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: GJL on February 02, 2018, 11:50:52 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 10:36:26 AM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

She didn't connect going into the rugby player's bedroom with danger.

George Hook is back so. . .
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 12:22:49 PM
@FrankGreaney on twitter doing updates.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 02, 2018, 12:28:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 12:14:05 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: GJL on February 02, 2018, 11:50:52 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 10:36:26 AM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

She didn't connect going into the rugby player's bedroom with danger.

Jesus f**king wept.

Explain.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 02, 2018, 12:41:51 PM
Best and Henderson are colleagues and have no idea what happened. If it is rape it is criminal. Paul Kimmage spoke to Tom Humphries when the news came out and had no idea what the real story was.
The employer will typically suspend the employee during the trial and sack the employee if there is a conviction.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 02, 2018, 12:51:52 PM
https://m.independent.ie/sport/rugby/six-nations/rory-best-declines-to-explain-decision-to-attend-rape-trial-of-teammates-as-irfu-media-manager-steps-in-36559919.html
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 02, 2018, 12:55:32 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 12:28:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 12:14:05 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: GJL on February 02, 2018, 11:50:52 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 10:36:26 AM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

She didn't connect going into the rugby player's bedroom with danger.

Jesus f**king wept.

Explain.
Its embarrassing lad.  Going back to the house, and going in to anyones room shouldn't spell danger.  This sort of thing happens every bloody night of the week the world over.  99.9% of the time it doesn't end up with some girl in hysterics.  Its called life.  Im sure they didn't have rapist tattooed on their heads.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 02, 2018, 01:13:02 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 02, 2018, 12:55:32 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 12:28:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 12:14:05 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: GJL on February 02, 2018, 11:50:52 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 10:36:26 AM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

She didn't connect going into the rugby player's bedroom with danger.

Jesus f**king wept.

Explain.
Its embarrassing lad.  Going back to the house, and going in to anyones room shouldn't spell danger.  This sort of thing happens every bloody night of the week the world over.  99.9% of the time it doesn't end up with some girl in hysterics.  Its called life.  Im sure they didn't have rapist tattooed on their heads.

Fair enough. That wouldn't have happened in my day.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 01:33:40 PM
She has said she was happy enough with a bit of kissing, which was in his room. No harm in that, you can't say she was stupid because she didn't sense she was at risk of being raped.

Girls didn't go to house parties and have a wee flirt and a kiss with boys back in your day? I find that very hard to believe.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 02, 2018, 02:00:17 PM
Embarrassing few weeks for the IRFU. First they hired Groebler in spite of a stringent anti doping policy and now the national team captain and another squad member appear a t a trial to give evidence at a trial defending the accused against rape charges. The IRFU do not come out of this period well. They batted off questions today but when the trial concludes I exepct that they will still have to answer the question of whether Best and Henderson had sought or received permission from them to appear at the trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 02:03:26 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on February 02, 2018, 02:00:17 PM
Embarrassing few weeks for the IRFU. First they hired Groebler in spite of a stringent anti doping policy and now the national team captain and another squad member appear at a trial to give evidence at a trial defending the accused against rape charges. The IRFU do not come out of this period well. They batted off questions today but when the trial concludes I exepct that they will still have to answer the question of whether Best and Henderson had sought or received permission from them to appear at the trial.

That is just completely FAKE NEWS as trump would say.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 02:09:10 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on February 02, 2018, 02:00:17 PM
Embarrassing few weeks for the IRFU. First they hired Groebler in spite of a stringent anti doping policy and now the national team captain and another squad member appear a t a trial to give evidence at a trial defending the accused against rape charges. The IRFU do not come out of this period well. They batted off questions today but when the trial concludes I exepct that they will still have to answer the question of whether Best and Henderson had sought or received permission from them to appear at the trial.

Yeah, it doesn't help when people f**k up the facts of the matter. They were attending court as members of the public, not as witnesses.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 02, 2018, 02:11:29 PM
Some of the nonsense being spouted on here is embarassing.

As regards Orior's comment is he not just quoting what the girl herself said in her evidence as reported in some of the papers today?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: rosnarun on February 02, 2018, 02:12:50 PM
does any one really believe that Schmidt  talking about the case could case it to collapse ? or Best for that matter
it would be a pretty handy way of getting your buddy off the hook.
lote shite being talked
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 02:19:20 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 01:33:40 PM
She has said she was happy enough with a bit of kissing, which was in his room. No harm in that, you can't say she was stupid because she didn't sense she was at risk of being raped.

Girls didn't go to house parties and have a wee flirt and a kiss with boys back in your day? I find that very hard to believe.
Boys and girls sat at opposite sides of the parochial hall.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 02:19:58 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 02, 2018, 02:12:50 PM
does any one really believe that Schmidt  talking about the case could case it to collapse ? or Best for that matter
it would be a pretty handy way of getting your buddy off the hook.
lote shite being talked

If the Ireland Rugby Captain comes out  in a press conference and says "I went to the trial to support my friends and team mates because I believe they did not commit this crime" . . . do you no think this put a bias on the trial?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 02:20:16 PM
Schmidt answering a question about whether Best consulted him before attending court has absolutely no bearing on the case whatsoever.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 02, 2018, 02:23:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 02:20:16 PM
Schmidt answering a question about whether Best consulted him before attending court has absolutely no bearing on the case whatsoever.
It is only relevant in the court of public opinion.
The IRFU is not managing the froth around this case well.It should not be a feature of the pre match interviews.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 02, 2018, 02:40:43 PM
Best and Henderson was poor judgement at best, they could have offered their support privately without attending. As public figures, they should be aware of the negative publicity it would attract, smacks of arrogance to me.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Captain Scarlet on February 02, 2018, 03:14:48 PM
I understand there will be a number of weeks until any ruling?
This will not go away and will be some craic when the English press have Rory in front of them. From that point alone as Captain he has opened his team and manager up to so much shite.
When it is all settled, one way or another then the real fun starts as Vodafone and the likes might take a dim view of what is going on. There will be numerous shitstorms that could have been avoided if they didn't go.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 03:22:38 PM
Quote from: Captain Scarlet on February 02, 2018, 03:14:48 PM
I understand there will be a number of weeks until any ruling?
This will not go away and will be some craic when the English press have Rory in front of them. From that point alone as Captain he has opened his team and manager up to so much shite.
When it is all settled, one way or another then the real fun starts as Vodafone and the likes might take a dim view of what is going on. There will be numerous shitstorms that could have been avoided if they didn't go.

I think you're over reacting. . . they won't go again I don't think and it will be a full 6 weeks until the England match. If asked the question again it will be no comment. Nothing can happen really until the verdict comes in. If the lads get off with it their attendance will fade away.

If they are guilty they can come out and say they believed their friends and wanted to offer support and are deeply sorry for any offence caused etc. etc.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 10:36:26 AM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Disgusting.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 02, 2018, 03:36:58 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 02, 2018, 02:40:43 PM
Best and Henderson was poor judgement at best, they could have offered their support privately without attending. As public figures, they should be aware of the negative publicity it would attract, smacks of arrogance to me.

well put

pair of arrogant pricks.....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 02, 2018, 03:37:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 10:36:26 AM
Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Disgusting.

should be put off the board for that comment. yes.. disgusting
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 02, 2018, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on February 02, 2018, 03:36:58 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 02, 2018, 02:40:43 PM
Best and Henderson was poor judgement at best, they could have offered their support privately without attending. As public figures, they should be aware of the negative publicity it would attract, smacks of arrogance to me.

well put

pair of arrogant pricks.....
Living in a professional bubble. A long way from Mike Gibson.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Therealdonald on February 02, 2018, 04:18:08 PM
How is that question not relevant in a pre-match press conference? If Best had attended a brothel before the game would it be mentioned? Or if he was found to have sent lewd images to a woman? All three are different scenarios yet they all have somewhat of a moral link. I don't agree with Best being Captain anyway, but surely this is a judgement call that warrants a retort from Schmidt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 04:30:12 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: rosnarun on February 02, 2018, 04:41:45 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 02:20:16 PM
Schmidt answering a question about whether Best consulted him before attending court has absolutely no bearing on the case whatsoever.
my point is nothing Schmidt could say would have a bearing on the case unless he has something to testify before the court .
he is mnot an involved party.
he answere like that because he dies not want a court case being spoken about during his press conference and could not give a shite about the girl, olding or Jackson
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:45:30 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 04:30:12 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on February 02, 2018, 04:52:16 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42919523

This is nuts. They're accused, not proven guilty yet!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 02, 2018, 04:52:27 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 02:19:20 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 01:33:40 PM
She has said she was happy enough with a bit of kissing, which was in his room. No harm in that, you can't say she was stupid because she didn't sense she was at risk of being raped.

Girls didn't go to house parties and have a wee flirt and a kiss with boys back in your day? I find that very hard to believe.
Boys and girls sat at opposite sides of the parochial hall.

Damn right.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 02, 2018, 04:56:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:45:30 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 04:30:12 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.

He said 'noticeable', which it is, given the fact that he noticed it.

I don't know where you got 'notable' out of in your next paragraph.  It looks like you made it up.  And nowhere did he even mention innocence or guilt.

As the self-appointed chief virtue signaller on here, you should at least get the terminology right before correcting other posters.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:57:54 PM
Quote from: Franko on February 02, 2018, 04:56:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:45:30 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 04:30:12 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.

He said 'noticeable', which it is, given the fact that he noticed it.

I don't know where you got 'notable' out of in your next paragraph.  It looks like you made it up.  And nowhere did he even mention innocence or guilt.

As the self-appointed chief virtue signaller on here, you should at least get the terminology right before correcting other posters.

You've immediately outed yourself for what you are using such rancid alt-right terminology. Whoops.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 02, 2018, 05:01:05 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:57:54 PM
Quote from: Franko on February 02, 2018, 04:56:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:45:30 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 04:30:12 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.

He said 'noticeable', which it is, given the fact that he noticed it.

I don't know where you got 'notable' out of in your next paragraph.  It looks like you made it up.  And nowhere did he even mention innocence or guilt.

As the self-appointed chief virtue signaller on here, you should at least get the terminology right before correcting other posters.

You've immediately outed yourself for what you are using such rancid alt-right terminology. Whoops.

Rancid? Alt-Right? Catch a grip!

Telling that you haven't amended your post yet.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 02, 2018, 05:07:22 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

"Northern Ireland footballers Will Grigg and Kyle Lafferty were also in VIP section that night. They'd just returned from Euros after being knocked out by Wales. The woman said she didn't know them but had heard of Grigg because of the song 'WILL GRIGG'S ON FIRE'"

Arlene may be called to give musical evidence
There was a clear shortage of VIPs.  The McGourtys were at home watching DVDS and MR2 was in the Fiver Club.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:12:21 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 02, 2018, 05:07:22 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

"Northern Ireland footballers Will Grigg and Kyle Lafferty were also in VIP section that night. They'd just returned from Euros after being knocked out by Wales. The woman said she didn't know them but had heard of Grigg because of the song 'WILL GRIGG'S ON FIRE'"

Arlene may be called to give musical evidence
There was a clear shortage of VIPs.  The McGourtys were at home watching DVDS and MR2 was in the Fiver Club.

I have serious questions about where your head is at for you to be cracking lame jokes in the context of a horrible gang rape trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 05:20:21 PM
The defense appears to be trying to hint that there was a "celebrity chaser" aspect to this girl and that she couldn't possibly have been clueless as to who these people were.

If nothing else, must be pretty bruising for the ego of some of these arseholes. I genuinely have no idea what either Olding or Will Grigg look like, wouldn't notice Lafferty unless someone pointed him out to me and would walk past Jackson on the street without batting an eyelid.

If they try to paint them as some big attractive celebrity they'll get laughed out of it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 05:23:24 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:57:54 PM
Quote from: Franko on February 02, 2018, 04:56:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:45:30 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 04:30:12 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.

He said 'noticeable', which it is, given the fact that he noticed it.

I don't know where you got 'notable' out of in your next paragraph.  It looks like you made it up.  And nowhere did he even mention innocence or guilt.

As the self-appointed chief virtue signaller on here, you should at least get the terminology right before correcting other posters.

You've immediately outed yourself for what you are using such rancid alt-right terminology. Whoops.

Someone calls you out for a stupid post and you deflect and point something else out and come up with some other accusation about the poster rather than address the point they raised.  Still awaiting your response as to what mountain of evidence has convinced you 100% of their guilt a few days into a trial.  I'd be interested to see you lay it out?  You were in earlier posts already starting to question what the woman who walked in on it will say..what if she is a friend of Jackson etc.  You haven't even heard what she has to say yet ffs
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:32:21 PM
He's happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:32:21 PM
He's happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that's a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they're in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don't even realise that's what they're doing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 05:42:59 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:32:21 PM
He's happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that's a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they're in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don't even realise that's what they're doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 05:45:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 05:20:21 PM
The defense appears to be trying to hint that there was a "celebrity chaser" aspect to this girl and that she couldn't possibly have been clueless as to who these people were.

If nothing else, must be pretty bruising for the ego of some of these arseholes. I genuinely have no idea what either Olding or Will Grigg look like, wouldn't notice Lafferty unless someone pointed him out to me and would walk past Jackson on the street without batting an eyelid.

If they try to paint them as some big attractive celebrity they'll get laughed out of it
Yes but you're not some naive 18/19 year old princess who would jump at the chance to pull an Ulster player... not saying this is the case with the alleged victim here but sadly there are girls who would throw themselves at certain people due to their perceived fame - much like jersey tuggers in GAA
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:47:10 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 05:42:59 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:32:21 PM
He's happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that's a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they're in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don't even realise that's what they're doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.

Explain why it's a court case, then. What does the woman get out of this added ordeal, one she was very reticent to even do at the time of the incident because of exactly your sort of reactions to it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 02, 2018, 05:48:24 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:32:21 PM
He's happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that's a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they're in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don't even realise that's what they're doing.

Lizard brain now the latest insult to anyone who has the common sense to at least wait until a bit more of the case is heard before deciding on someone's guilt.  I imagine this is what it would be like debating something with Donald trump.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:50:12 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:32:21 PM
He's happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that's a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they're in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don't even realise that's what they're doing.

Look crusader, I posted what was on the news, now you can talk shite all day and that's fine. Most sensible people will wait and see the whole side of the events and make the decision on the evidence, you're neither a lawyer solicitor or barrister..

Now you can find what I posted from what was said on the news, just like the link screen put up. Now run along there, there must have been a granny over charged in a taxi that you could help out!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 05:58:47 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 05:45:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 05:20:21 PM
The defense appears to be trying to hint that there was a "celebrity chaser" aspect to this girl and that she couldn't possibly have been clueless as to who these people were.

If nothing else, must be pretty bruising for the ego of some of these arseholes. I genuinely have no idea what either Olding or Will Grigg look like, wouldn't notice Lafferty unless someone pointed him out to me and would walk past Jackson on the street without batting an eyelid.

If they try to paint them as some big attractive celebrity they'll get laughed out of it
Yes but you're not some naive 18/19 year old princess who would jump at the chance to pull an Ulster player... not saying this is the case with the alleged victim here but sadly there are girls who would throw themselves at certain people due to their perceived fame - much like jersey tuggers in GAA

Of course there are, but without any specific evidence of it, it's easily refuted. It's Paddy Jackson living in the estate beside the BP on the Ravenhill, not David Beckham
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 06:04:15 PM
She'd need to not any evidence of knowing Ulster or Irish Rugby to not know who he is.. Facebook and twitter accounts and other social media she may have will point towards if she knows these players..

Hopefully she doesn't have history of that info on her..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 06:08:50 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:45:30 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 04:30:12 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.
Noticeable as in I observed.

You're an emotional wreck here Syferus.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 02, 2018, 06:09:56 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 06:04:15 PM
She'd need to not any evidence of knowing Ulster or Irish Rugby to not know who he is.. Facebook and twitter accounts and other social media she may have will point towards if she knows these players..

Hopefully she doesn't have history of that info on her..
I don't see why she would lie about not knowing who they were, even if she was fully aware of who they were, even if she pursued them all night, doesn't mean she still could not have been raped.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 06:21:33 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 06:08:50 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:45:30 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 04:30:12 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.
Noticeable as in I observed.

You're an emotional wreck here Syferus.

:o

If you're trying to pretend that your implication wasn't that Olding's family aren't supporting his plea of innocence like Jackson's family are it's not going to wash on many people.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 06:30:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:47:10 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 05:42:59 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:32:21 PM
He's happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that's a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they're in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don't even realise that's what they're doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.

Explain why it's a court case, then. What does the woman get out of this added ordeal, one she was very reticent to even do at the time of the incident because of exactly your sort of reactions to it?
Ask the women who fitted up all these other lads recently what they were getting out of it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 02, 2018, 06:53:27 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 06:21:33 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 06:08:50 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:45:30 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 04:30:12 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.
Noticeable as in I observed.

You're an emotional wreck here Syferus.

:o

If you're trying to pretend that your implication wasn't that Olding's family aren't supporting his plea of innocence like Jackson's family are it's not going to wash on many people.

Like who?  The only one I see getting worked up about it is you.  And let's face it, you've retreated that far up your own uber-righteous arse that your opinions are being disregarded by most as a comedy side show.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 07:14:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 06:21:33 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 06:08:50 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:45:30 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 04:30:12 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.
Noticeable as in I observed.

You're an emotional wreck here Syferus.

:o

If you're trying to pretend that your implication wasn't that Olding's family aren't supporting his plea of innocence like Jackson's family are it's not going to wash on many people.

Calm down petal. It was an observation, don't know any of the players or their families.

Syferus, the voice of moral indignation.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 02, 2018, 07:21:59 PM
The questioning of the 2 rugby wallas will be very interesting.
If the lady was up for it why did she leave in hysterics? Why was her interaction with the 2 gentlemen so unsatisfactory? 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 07:22:33 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 07:14:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 06:21:33 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 06:08:50 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:45:30 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 04:30:12 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.
Noticeable as in I observed.

You're an emotional wreck here Syferus.

:o

If you're trying to pretend that your implication wasn't that Olding's family aren't supporting his plea of innocence like Jackson's family are it's not going to wash on many people.

Calm down petal. It was an observation, don't know any of the players or their families.

Syferus, the voice of moral indignation.

PW Nally, the voice of oh-shit-I-need-to-back-pedal.

I'm disappointed you're engaging in regressive name-calling. Always thought you were a decent poster.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 07:52:39 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 07:22:33 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 07:14:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 06:21:33 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 06:08:50 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:45:30 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 04:30:12 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.
Noticeable as in I observed.

You're an emotional wreck here Syferus.

:o

If you're trying to pretend that your implication wasn't that Olding's family aren't supporting his plea of innocence like Jackson's family are it's not going to wash on many people.

Calm down petal. It was an observation, don't know any of the players or their families.

Syferus, the voice of moral indignation.

PW Nally, the voice of oh-shit-I-need-to-back-pedal.

I'm disappointed you're engaging in regressive name-calling. Always thought you were a decent poster.
I posted the most innocuous thing possible and you drew the wrong conclusion.  No big deal just don't keep at it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Il Bomber Destro on February 02, 2018, 07:59:14 PM
Quote from: Franko on February 02, 2018, 04:56:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:45:30 PM
Quote from: PW Nally on February 02, 2018, 04:30:12 PM
Some strange and bizarre opinions being offered here. Surely the sensible approach is to take in as much information as possible before deciding for certain what occurred.

Absolutely no winners in this case. Noticeable in TV reports I have seen that Jackson has family with him going to court each day whereas Olding is on his own.

Noticeable?

If anything it's Jackson who is dead to rights on this one given he was the instigator.

Family members and spouses/girlfriends regularly support their own whether it's obvious they're guilty or not. Either unwilling or unable to process the fact their own kin is capable of what they are accused of. It's not really notable at all with regards their innocence or guilt, PW.

He said 'noticeable', which it is, given the fact that he noticed it.

I don't know where you got 'notable' out of in your next paragraph.  It looks like you made it up.  And nowhere did he even mention innocence or guilt.

As the self-appointed chief virtue signaller on here, you should at least get the terminology right before correcting other posters.

He is strangely ok with Michael Noonan's role in the 'Grace' case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 08:05:45 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 06:30:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:47:10 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 05:42:59 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:32:21 PM
He's happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that's a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they're in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don't even realise that's what they're doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.

Explain why it's a court case, then. What does the woman get out of this added ordeal, one she was very reticent to even do at the time of the incident because of exactly your sort of reactions to it?
Ask the women who fitted up all these other lads recently what they were getting out of it?

I agree... Syf showing himself up very badly here!! Why feel the need to condemn people before due process??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 08:41:56 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 08:05:45 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 06:30:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:47:10 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 05:42:59 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:32:21 PM
He's happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that's a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they're in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don't even realise that's what they're doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.

Explain why it's a court case, then. What does the woman get out of this added ordeal, one she was very reticent to even do at the time of the incident because of exactly your sort of reactions to it?
Ask the women who fitted up all these other lads recently what they were getting out of it?

I agree... Syf showing himself up very badly here!! Why feel the need to condemn people before due process??

It's not me who is being shown up in the least.

So this victim invented a gang rape because you've one case of it ocurring, Tony? You do understand that this court case is going to chase her around like a bad smell even if she's fully vindicated by the jury, right? This is not something people decide to go through for the kicks.

So many people here seem to start from a position of disbelieving the female victim of rape or sexual assault when the more natural position should be believing the victim. Victim blaming is such a massive part of rape culture and it needs to be constantly guarded against.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 08:49:10 PM
What is this "one" case you speak of?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Il Bomber Destro on February 02, 2018, 08:53:45 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 08:41:56 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 02, 2018, 08:05:45 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 06:30:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:47:10 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 05:42:59 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:32:21 PM
He's happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that's a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they're in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don't even realise that's what they're doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.

Explain why it's a court case, then. What does the woman get out of this added ordeal, one she was very reticent to even do at the time of the incident because of exactly your sort of reactions to it?
Ask the women who fitted up all these other lads recently what they were getting out of it?

I agree... Syf showing himself up very badly here!! Why feel the need to condemn people before due process??

It's not me who is being shown up in the least.

So this victim invented a gang rape because you've one case of it ocurring, Tony? You do understand that this court case is going to chase her around like a bad smell even if she's fully vindicated by the jury, right? This is not something people decide to go through for the kicks.

So many people here seem to start from a position of disbelieving the female victim of rape or sexual assault when the more natural position should be believing the victim. Victim blaming is such a massive part of rape culture and it needs to be constantly guarded against.

What do you think of Michael Noonan's role in the Grace case?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 02, 2018, 08:55:35 PM
It's a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: armaghniac on February 02, 2018, 08:59:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 08:41:56 PM
So many people here seem to start from a position of disbelieving the female victim of rape or sexual assault when the more natural position should be believing the victim. Victim blaming is such a massive part of rape culture and it needs to be constantly guarded against.

Innocent, until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, that is the principle civilised society has adopted for such things.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 02, 2018, 09:00:13 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:47:10 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 05:42:59 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:32:21 PM
He's happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that's a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they're in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don't even realise that's what they're doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.

Explain why it's a court case, then. What does the woman get out of this added ordeal, one she was very reticent to even do at the time of the incident because of exactly your sort of reactions to it?
Syferus to be honest I would agree with a lot of the conclusions and points you have made regarding this.  From the evidence that I have read I think they are guilty as sin in my opinion.  But that is all it is, an opinion.  The jurors will have far more evidence, and for you to condemn other posters on here for having a different opinion, one that is fairly moderate in that the outcome could be very different, or that they want to wait until the conclusion of the  trial before making judgement, is sanctimonious in the extreme.  I made a comment that I found another posters statement embarrassing, however it would be one that I'm sure my own mother would come out with, and I would be embarrassed if she said it in public, but she is neither rancid, disgusting or any of the plethora of other hyperbolic adjectives your throwing around here at others.  You see everything in black and white, and right and wrong. The real world is much different.  You would do well to listen to other people's opinions and even if you dont agree, atleast try to understand where they might be coming from.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 02, 2018, 09:07:11 PM
Some people remember from the news reports, the question about the woman waiting 2 days before going to the police, but they don't remember the answers given. They  will even ask here "why did she wait 2 days?" as if waiting 2 days implied something abnormal but they neglected to read and/or remember the woman's reply in court to that very question.
That's the tactic of the lawyer in asking the question, the question sticks in the head of those in the jury/members of public  who are predisposed  to doubt the woman's integrity/motivation.

Syf´s question  (What does the woman get out of this added ordeal?) was poorly answered by a poster asking another question, which has no bearing on this case. There's no evidence that the woman is concocting the allegation with malice.
The prosecution may not be able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, but that does not imply false charges or a vindictive action by the woman.
The defense team obviously have paid attention, trying to portray the woman as being an opportunist, showing the woman in a poor light, one who would be motivated by dishonest motives,  but so far the woman has stood up well to that questioning.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trueblue1234 on February 02, 2018, 09:10:03 PM
Unfortunately Syf has now turned this thread into more focus on him than what is actually being discussed. Him and Tony have a lot in common.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 09:11:18 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 02, 2018, 09:10:03 PM
Unfortunately Syf has now turned this thread into more focus on him than what is actually being discussed. Him and Tony have a lot in common.
Just this thread?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 02, 2018, 11:12:23 PM
Ruins so many decent threads with the same moralising shite.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:17:01 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 08:55:35 PM
It's a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 03, 2018, 12:20:53 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 02, 2018, 09:00:13 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:47:10 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 02, 2018, 05:42:59 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:32:21 PM
He's happier when attacking posters than dealing with the facts

From the lad who claims to have read the report and immediately goes and contradicts it that's a bit rich. You opened yourself to attack by trying to shovel baseless dirt on the victim.

The fact some people try to hide their disbelief of the victim behind legalise or petty insults highlights that some part of their lizard brain tells them they're in hot water on this issue. It goes without saying that victim-blaming is abhorant and many of those who support its continuation don't even realise that's what they're doing.
She's not a victim yet. She could have been a willing participant.

Explain why it's a court case, then. What does the woman get out of this added ordeal, one she was very reticent to even do at the time of the incident because of exactly your sort of reactions to it?
Syferus to be honest I would agree with a lot of the conclusions and points you have made regarding this.  From the evidence that I have read I think they are guilty as sin in my opinion.  But that is all it is, an opinion.  The jurors will have far more evidence, and for you to condemn other posters on here for having a different opinion, one that is fairly moderate in that the outcome could be very different, or that they want to wait until the conclusion of the  trial before making judgement, is sanctimonious in the extreme.  I made a comment that I found another posters statement embarrassing, however it would be one that I'm sure my own mother would come out with, and I would be embarrassed if she said it in public, but she is neither rancid, disgusting or any of the plethora of other hyperbolic adjectives your throwing around here at others.  You see everything in black and white, and right and wrong. The real world is much different.  You would do well to listen to other people's opinions and even if you dont agree, atleast try to understand where they might be coming from.

Would largely agree with all of that
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 03, 2018, 12:22:28 AM
Quote from: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:17:01 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 08:55:35 PM
It's a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

Talk about the mother of all over reactions!! I doubt the reaction would have been half this were it not for social media.

Best and Henderson have done NOTHING wrong...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:24:18 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 03, 2018, 12:22:28 AM
Quote from: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:17:01 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 08:55:35 PM
It's a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

Talk about the mother of all over reactions!! I doubt the reaction would have been half this were it not for social media.

Best and Henderson have done NOTHING wrong...

I take it you don't have daughter(s). You might just see it a little different it you did. I'll leave it at that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 03, 2018, 12:26:15 AM
This is taking the piss. The IRFU and Ulster did not hesitate in suspending the players upon their arrest back in June. The players are facing very serious charges but they are entitled to a fair hearing no matter how guilty they appear. People are reading too much into Best and Henderson's (misguided) attendance at court, as if somehow they're going to influence proceedings from the public gallery - the girl doesn't even know any rugby players anyway. The accused are pleading innocence and are entitled to that presumption until proven otherwise.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:33:30 AM
Quote from: general_lee on February 03, 2018, 12:26:15 AM
This is taking the piss. The IRFU and Ulster did not hesitate in suspending the players upon their arrest back in June. The players are facing very serious charges but they are entitled to a fair hearing no matter how guilty they appear. People are reading too much into Best and Henderson's (misguided) attendance at court, as if somehow they're going to influence proceedings from the public gallery - the girl doesn't even know any rugby players anyway. The accused are pleading innocence and are entitled to that presumption until proven otherwise.

Its far from taking the piss. Its not that long ago since rugby minded people closed ranks on a tragedy outside Annabelles night club in Dublin. At least some sort of justice was eventually distributed in that case.

There are parallels here. As far as I'm concerned far too many people don't see an issue with this. There is no way they should have been there - end of story. If you want to look at it from a pure sport perspective then you simply say that there's a game on saturday and they should have been preparing. If they wanted to support them they should have sent a txt.

The IRFU are normally such a professional well run organisation - they must be raging
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 03, 2018, 12:37:24 AM
Quote from: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:24:18 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 03, 2018, 12:22:28 AM
Quote from: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:17:01 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 08:55:35 PM
It's a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

Talk about the mother of all over reactions!! I doubt the reaction would have been half this were it not for social media.

Best and Henderson have done NOTHING wrong...

I take it you don't have daughter(s). You might just see it a little different it you did. I'll leave it at that.

What has that got to do with this? What if you had a son accused of this?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 12:44:08 AM
Frank you need to stop digging.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 03, 2018, 12:50:32 AM
Quote from: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:33:30 AM
Quote from: general_lee on February 03, 2018, 12:26:15 AM
This is taking the piss. The IRFU and Ulster did not hesitate in suspending the players upon their arrest back in June. The players are facing very serious charges but they are entitled to a fair hearing no matter how guilty they appear. People are reading too much into Best and Henderson's (misguided) attendance at court, as if somehow they're going to influence proceedings from the public gallery - the girl doesn't even know any rugby players anyway. The accused are pleading innocence and are entitled to that presumption until proven otherwise.

Its far from taking the piss. Its not that long ago since rugby minded people closed ranks on a tragedy outside Annabelles night club in Dublin. At least some sort of justice was eventually distributed in that case.

There are parallels here. As far as I'm concerned far too many people don't see an issue with this. There is no way they should have been there - end of story. If you want to look at it from a pure sport perspective then you simply say that there's a game on saturday and they should have been preparing. If they wanted to support them they should have sent a txt.

The IRFU are normally such a professional well run organisation - they must be raging
It's taking the piss when you say the IRFU are sending a message that they don't believe the girl and are comparing it to something completely different
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on February 03, 2018, 01:53:25 AM
Quote from: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:17:01 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 08:55:35 PM
It's a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

WTF is that supposed to mean?  The term "professional" in sporting terms does not infer any higher echelon of education or intelligence!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 03, 2018, 02:01:01 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 12:44:08 AM
Frank you need to stop digging.

Digging what you clown..I've said consistently I haven't made my mind up on myverdict.  I've asked you numerous times about certain points you've raised and you avoid answering.

One example...do you accept vaginal brusing/bleeding is no indication of non consensual sex.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 03, 2018, 05:25:55 AM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on February 03, 2018, 01:53:25 AM
Quote from: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:17:01 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 08:55:35 PM
It's a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

WTF is that supposed to mean?  The term "professional" in sporting terms does not infer any higher echelon of education or intelligence!
Hanging around all day training is probably correlated with the opposite.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 03, 2018, 07:38:51 AM
The Kangaroo Court that this thread has turned into is really allowing people display their prejudices and societal insecurities.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: bennydorano on February 03, 2018, 09:52:15 AM
It's the same on every thread that raises the pulse.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 03, 2018, 10:02:02 AM
The lady is pretty sharp. Be interesting to see if the boys have the smarts.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/it-was-like-i-wasnt-there-court-hears-police-tape-of-alleged-rugby-rape-victim-36562922.html

When she said she could not remember parts of her night out in the club, the lawyer asked her: "Do you typically forget things when you have been drinking?"

She responded: "I don't remember every single moment of a night out. Clubs are busy places.

"You don't remember blow-by-blow exactly what you did.

"When you go for a night out you are not expecting to be in court detailing every second of it."

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 03, 2018, 10:08:02 AM
Am I missing something but whats the accusation that she went out to meet celebrities?  Loads of people like Fearon do thst hanging around looking their pic took with celebrities etc. Whether she wanted to meet them or not.. so?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 03, 2018, 10:12:50 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 03, 2018, 10:02:02 AM
The lady is pretty sharp. Be interesting to see if the boys have the smarts.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/it-was-like-i-wasnt-there-court-hears-police-tape-of-alleged-rugby-rape-victim-36562922.html

When she said she could not remember parts of her night out in the club, the lawyer asked her: "Do you typically forget things when you have been drinking?"

She responded: "I don't remember every single moment of a night out. Clubs are busy places.

"You don't remember blow-by-blow exactly what you did.

"When you go for a night out you are not expecting to be in court detailing every second of it."

Pretty sharp but also well coached.

This is a real Golden Goose. Are for the PPS. Some of the stuff floating about 'off the record' is shocking. There are real difficulties for the prosecution but why would a young girl put hers of through this amount of personal scrutiny if there was nothing in it. Also despite what people might think the majority, and I mean vast majority, of cases that go to trial are on the basis of a very strong chance of proving guilt. There are 'political' cases taken and I do believe there is an element of that here but reading behind the headlines and the glib commentary there is a real case here and I believe that the defendants are genuinely risking time in jail. There will be twists and turns but some of the evidence so far is very damning.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 03, 2018, 10:46:03 AM
Quote from: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:24:18 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 03, 2018, 12:22:28 AM
Quote from: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:17:01 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 08:55:35 PM
It's a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

Talk about the mother of all over reactions!! I doubt the reaction would have been half this were it not for social media.

Best and Henderson have done NOTHING wrong...

I take it you don't have daughter(s). You might just see it a little different it you did. I'll leave it at that.

Ive two daughters , your point is?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 03, 2018, 10:49:30 AM
Quote from: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:17:01 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 08:55:35 PM
It's a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

I think the text between herself and her pal will damage her. It's the defence barristers job to test her evidence and that's why she's getting a roasting in the witness box
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 03, 2018, 11:45:11 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 03, 2018, 10:49:30 AM
Quote from: straightred on February 03, 2018, 12:17:01 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 02, 2018, 08:55:35 PM
It's a very obvious tactic by the defence lawyers, trying to blacken the victims modus operandi. The rugby players are guilty but I just wish she had been a little more cautious in her night out. It would have a lot of trouble all round.

I dont know if they are guilty or not and hopefully the trial and jury get that right. What I do know is that a series of rotten txts were exchanged afterwards and that in itself is unbecoming of a professional sport person. The fact that a current irish captain then sees fit to support the authors of same txts from the gallery is just baffling. Its not too late to drop Best but i fear they won't. its a clear message from the IRFU to the alleged victim "we don't believe you". Not good enough

I think the text between herself and her pal will damage her. It's the defence barristers job to test her evidence and that's why she's getting a roasting in the witness box
what was the text been herself and the pal that could cause problems?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 11:49:21 AM
Avondhu Star is taking a very, shall we say, unique reading of the texts.

The woman is nailing the defence lawyer's attempts to discredit her and more power to her for being able to withstand such a pathetic line of questioning with reasoned and sensible answers. The defence is fruitlessly looking for a reaction.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on February 03, 2018, 12:17:55 PM
I got whatsapps last night of Facebook pictures of the complainant. I also got screenshots of random text messages exchanged saying these claim are fabricated.

If this lady has been raped you really got to feel sick for her.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 03, 2018, 12:20:16 PM
It's truly amazing the insight that people seem to be able to gather about the trial based on reading a three paragraph report on two or three questions asked or answers given over the course of a days questioning. The simple fact is that unless you've been at the trial, been able to hear the evidence it's impossible to know the strength of any evidence given so far. I've run cases which I've subsequently read about in the press or seen on TV which have been unrecognisable to me.

Personally I won't ever be making a determination of the guilt or innocence of these or any other defendants unless I've had an opportunity to consider all the evidence. I know plenty will, but come the end of this trial all I will know is what the Jury have decided and I'll take it from there.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 03, 2018, 03:17:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 11:49:21 AM
Avondhu Star is taking a very, shall we say, unique reading of the texts.

The woman is nailing the defence lawyer's attempts to discredit her and more power to her for being able to withstand such a pathetic line of questioning with reasoned and sensible answers. The defence is fruitlessly looking for a reaction.
The text I refer to is the one from a friend of hers which tells her to let on she didn't know they were Ulster rugby players. Why would she need to do that?
The text between the accused just shows that they had sex with her and were bragging about it
There was no mention of a cover up of that activity
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on February 03, 2018, 03:23:13 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 03, 2018, 10:08:02 AM
Am I missing something but whats the accusation that she went out to meet celebrities?  Loads of people like Fearon do thst hanging around looking their pic took with celebrities etc. Whether she wanted to meet them or not.. so?

The implication they are trying to make is she is a dumb bimbo who went out desperate to meet and have sex with celebrities. It questions her character.

I think it is shocking that the Ireland captain would appear in court to support this but in some ways im not surprised. The rugby snobs think they are a law unto themselves after all.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 03, 2018, 03:57:09 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 03, 2018, 12:20:16 PM
It's truly amazing the insight that people seem to be able to gather about the trial based on reading a three paragraph report on two or three questions asked or answers given over the course of a days questioning. The simple fact is that unless you've been at the trial, been able to hear the evidence it's impossible to know the strength of any evidence given so far. I've run cases which I've subsequently read about in the press or seen on TV which have been unrecognisable to me.

Personally I won't ever be making a determination of the guilt or innocence of these or any other defendants unless I've had an opportunity to consider all the evidence. I know plenty will, but come the end of this trial all I will know is what the Jury have decided and I'll take it from there.
That's how your brain works.  Other people can form opinions.

It looks like she was genuinely afraid of the fact the lads were famous rugby players. A rape trial is extremely stressful. She would have to be sure of herself.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 03, 2018, 07:26:58 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 03, 2018, 03:57:09 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 03, 2018, 12:20:16 PM
It's truly amazing the insight that people seem to be able to gather about the trial based on reading a three paragraph report on two or three questions asked or answers given over the course of a days questioning. The simple fact is that unless you've been at the trial, been able to hear the evidence it's impossible to know the strength of any evidence given so far. I've run cases which I've subsequently read about in the press or seen on TV which have been unrecognisable to me.

Personally I won't ever be making a determination of the guilt or innocence of these or any other defendants unless I've had an opportunity to consider all the evidence. I know plenty will, but come the end of this trial all I will know is what the Jury have decided and I'll take it from there.
That's how your brain works.  Other people can form opinions don't have a brain

It looks like she was genuinely afraid of the fact the lads were famous rugby players. A rape trial is extremely stressful. She would have to be sure of herself.

Fixed that for ye.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 03, 2018, 08:00:11 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 03, 2018, 12:20:16 PM
It's truly amazing the insight that people seem to be able to gather about the trial based on reading a three paragraph report on two or three questions asked or answers given over the course of a days questioning. The simple fact is that unless you've been at the trial, been able to hear the evidence it's impossible to know the strength of any evidence given so far. I've run cases which I've subsequently read about in the press or seen on TV which have been unrecognisable to me.

Personally I won't ever be making a determination of the guilt or innocence of these or any other defendants unless I've had an opportunity to consider all the evidence. I know plenty will, but come the end of this trial all I will know is what the Jury have decided and I'll take it from there.

Fair enough. Yes, a lot of us are judging on the information to date which is wrong.

Why does this case have all the evidence in public? Are all rape case information in the public domain like this one?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 03, 2018, 08:04:52 PM
I find it unfaur that the defendant's are named. Their names will be tarred irrelevant of the outcome. Surely though, if they are innocent, they will play again? Why would they not? As for believing that any claimant wouldn't put herself and her family through this if it wasn't true, well there have been enough cases where women invented stories for whatever warped reason they had, innocent until proven guilty though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 03, 2018, 08:09:06 PM
The starting principle is that open justice is necessary in a civilised society. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. So as a general rule anything said or done in an open public court such as a crown court can be repeated. There are certain exceptions to this such as for example in this case nothing can be published that would lead either directly or indirectly to the complainant being identified.

Also I think the point I was trying to make is that we don't have all the evidence in public, we have highly condensed versions of what was said in court. Hours of speeches or question summarised down into a few passages and not always summarised well.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 03, 2018, 09:01:30 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 03, 2018, 10:12:50 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 03, 2018, 10:02:02 AM
The lady is pretty sharp. Be interesting to see if the boys have the smarts.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/it-was-like-i-wasnt-there-court-hears-police-tape-of-alleged-rugby-rape-victim-36562922.html

When she said she could not remember parts of her night out in the club, the lawyer asked her: "Do you typically forget things when you have been drinking?"

She responded: "I don't remember every single moment of a night out. Clubs are busy places.

"You don't remember blow-by-blow exactly what you did.

"When you go for a night out you are not expecting to be in court detailing every second of it."

Pretty sharp but also well coached.

This is a real Golden Goose. Are for the PPS. Some of the stuff floating about 'off the record' is shocking. There are real difficulties for the prosecution but why would a young girl put hers of through this amount of personal scrutiny if there was nothing in it. Also despite what people might think the majority, and I mean vast majority, of cases that go to trial are on the basis of a very strong chance of proving guilt. There are 'political' cases taken and I do believe there is an element of that here but reading behind the headlines and the glib commentary there is a real case here and I believe that the defendants are genuinely risking time in jail. There will be twists and turns but some of the evidence so far is very damning.

The PPS must be fairly certain on proceeding with a case that there is at least 50% chance of a conviction and in addition to the evidence PPS can present to a jury is the calculation of how the witness will come across to the jury, how well will they stand up to a defence barrister who must not appear to be beating them down and how clear and articulate do they come across to the jury.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 03, 2018, 09:26:41 PM
It is very interesting how the defendants have brought their side together under a single barrister.  There has been no dividing them despite the difference in the charges against them both in nature and severity.

Also, for N.Ireland, it is notable that the defence barrister is Brendan Kelly QC, Jackson's solicitor is Kevin Winters and Joe Rice is Olding's solicitor.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 03, 2018, 10:10:29 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 03, 2018, 09:26:41 PM
It is very interesting how the defendants have brought their side together under a single barrister.  There has been no dividing them despite the difference in the charges against them both in nature and severity.

Also, for N.Ireland, it is notable that the defence barrister is Brendan Kelly QC, Jackson's solicitor is Kevin Winters and Joe Rice is Olding's solicitor.

I was of the understanding there were at least three defence QC's. There's certainly at least three junior counsel.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rois on February 03, 2018, 10:29:33 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 03, 2018, 09:26:41 PM
It is very interesting how the defendants have brought their side together under a single barrister.  There has been no dividing them despite the difference in the charges against them both in nature and severity.

Also, for N.Ireland, it is notable that the defence barrister is Brendan Kelly QC, Jackson's solicitor is Kevin Winters and Joe Rice is Olding's solicitor.
Joe Rice is the Ulster Rugby counsel. Winters is (ultimately) Jackson's solicitor, his first counsel on injunction (I stand to be corrected).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 03, 2018, 10:32:00 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 03, 2018, 08:00:11 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 03, 2018, 12:20:16 PM
It's truly amazing the insight that people seem to be able to gather about the trial based on reading a three paragraph report on two or three questions asked or answers given over the course of a days questioning. The simple fact is that unless you've been at the trial, been able to hear the evidence it's impossible to know the strength of any evidence given so far. I've run cases which I've subsequently read about in the press or seen on TV which have been unrecognisable to me.

Personally I won't ever be making a determination of the guilt or innocence of these or any other defendants unless I've had an opportunity to consider all the evidence. I know plenty will, but come the end of this trial all I will know is what the Jury have decided and I'll take it from there.

Fair enough. Yes, a lot of us are judging on the information to date which is wrong.

Why does this case have all the evidence in public? Are all rape case information in the public domain like this one?
Is it because the case is high profile ? There is a lot of interest by definition in such cases. It sells papers
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 03, 2018, 11:17:30 PM
Quote from: Rois on February 03, 2018, 10:29:33 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 03, 2018, 09:26:41 PM
It is very interesting how the defendants have brought their side together under a single barrister.  There has been no dividing them despite the difference in the charges against them both in nature and severity.

Also, for N.Ireland, it is notable that the defence barrister is Brendan Kelly QC, Jackson's solicitor is Kevin Winters and Joe Rice is Olding's solicitor.
Joe Rice is the Ulster Rugby counsel. Winters is (ultimately) Jackson's solicitor, his first counsel on injunction (I stand to be corrected).

Would it be correct that this type of case is not usual for Kevin Winters while Joe Rice has been solicitor for a range of people from Pastor McConnell to some loyalist paramilitaries, this would not be a usual area for him?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 03, 2018, 11:28:12 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 03, 2018, 09:26:41 PM
It is very interesting how the defendants have brought their side together under a single barrister.  There has been no dividing them despite the difference in the charges against them both in nature and severity.

Also, for N.Ireland, it is notable that the defence barrister is Brendan Kelly QC, Jackson's solicitor is Kevin Winters and Joe Rice is Olding's solicitor.

Not notable at all. Winters are the biggest criminal law firm in the north and Rice not fair behind them. If you want someone to draw up a secure commercial contract get a Prod firm, if you want someone to fight your corner in a criminal dog fight get a fenian firm....end of story
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: straightred on February 04, 2018, 11:24:06 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

not me anyway - he muttered a few lines that he had a few days to prepare (or more likely have someone prepare for him). I think what is becoming clear is that the IRFU didn't know. It will be lost now in the euphoria of Sextons heroics but it could have been so different. Imagine that kick doesn't go over - we'd be picking over a poor performance looking for answers and our esteemed captain would have been top of a lot of people's lists. I hope he bought sexton a few pints last night
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 04, 2018, 11:34:27 AM
Quote from: straightred on February 04, 2018, 11:24:06 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

not me anyway - he muttered a few lines that he had a few days to prepare (or more likely have someone prepare for him). I think what is becoming clear is that the IRFU didn't know. It will be lost now in the euphoria of Sextons heroics but it could have been so different. Imagine that kick doesn't go over - we'd be picking over a poor performance looking for answers and our esteemed captain would have been top of a lot of people's lists. I hope he bought sexton a few pints last night

No alcohol bans in professional sport of course
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 04, 2018, 11:49:30 AM
Should Best be declaring at this stage he will be giving a good character reference ln behalf of Javkson? Also Best said he went to the trial to hear both sides, so if he gives the reference is that an inference he doesnt believe her? All abit dodgy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I'm not sure how his and Henderson's presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can't see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they're guilty as sin and he's closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 04, 2018, 12:04:18 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I'm not sure how his and Henderson's presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can't see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they're guilty as sin and he's closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

What makes you think they are guilty as sin?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: straightred on February 04, 2018, 12:05:33 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I'm not sure how his and Henderson's presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can't see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they're guilty as sin and he's closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 04, 2018, 12:36:12 PM
The logistics of the trial of very interesting. It is quite obvious that it has been pushed to coincide with the 6N and as a result it is kept in the media. This is a very emotive trial and either side could win great leverage through the use of the media. I tend to agree that there is a wee bit of spin in Best being there this week but also I believe him in that he wanted to hear her side of the story. If you're going to put your reputation on the line for someone you have to believe they deserve it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 04, 2018, 12:46:47 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 04, 2018, 11:49:30 AM
Should Best be declaring at this stage he will be giving a good character reference ln behalf of Javkson? Also Best said he went to the trial to hear both sides, so if he gives the reference is that an inference he doesnt believe her? All abit dodgy.
I think he clarified the position. It all comes down to who is telling the truth. The boys or the woman. Best didn't want to distract from the match. But he could have gone on Monday...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 04, 2018, 01:00:00 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 04, 2018, 12:46:47 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 04, 2018, 11:49:30 AM
Should Best be declaring at this stage he will be giving a good character reference ln behalf of Javkson? Also Best said he went to the trial to hear both sides, so if he gives the reference is that an inference he doesnt believe her? All abit dodgy.
I think he clarified the position. It all comes down to who is telling the truth. The boys or the woman. Best didn't want to distract from the match. But he could have gone on Monday...

He also explained that the squad sessions ended on the previous evening and it was his day off from Ireland duties.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Estimator on February 04, 2018, 01:06:22 PM
On the barrister front, I'd suggest that its smart move by the defence. It shows that they're all united on their version of events. There's no conflict of interest. All singing from the same hymn sheet.
Plus if all four defendants had barristers and all four barristers questioned the girl, it could come across as bullying the witness, which could impact on the jurys view of the witness.
When it comes to cross examining the defendants, they will only be questioned by the prosecution and their own barrister, so there won't have to face a barrage of questions from multiple barristers.
As well as that, it decreases the length of time in court.

With the statement from Rory, I'd say someone in the IRFU typed that up for him. I'd be very surprised if he was advised in any way to attend just because he was asked to provide a character reference. He's known Paddy for a number of years, I'm sure he could easily write something without attending court.  There's enough reporting in the media without having to show up in person
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 04, 2018, 01:15:07 PM
The longer it goes on the more tittle tattle you hear, this case will get complete messy from here on in!

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 04, 2018, 01:15:22 PM
Quote from: straightred on February 04, 2018, 12:05:33 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I'm not sure how his and Henderson's presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can't see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they're guilty as sin and he's closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn't follow rugby so she wouldn't know he was anyway. From behind the screen.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 04, 2018, 01:19:55 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 04, 2018, 01:15:22 PM
Quote from: straightred on February 04, 2018, 12:05:33 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I'm not sure how his and Henderson's presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can't see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they're guilty as sin and he's closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn't follow rugby so she wouldn't know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn't follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 04, 2018, 01:45:52 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 04, 2018, 01:19:55 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 04, 2018, 01:15:22 PM
Quote from: straightred on February 04, 2018, 12:05:33 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I'm not sure how his and Henderson's presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can't see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they're guilty as sin and he's closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn't follow rugby so she wouldn't know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn't follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too
She knows who Jackson is. Not sure about the others. She said she didn't follow Ulster or Irish rugby, so how can she be intimidated by Best and Henderson if she doesn't know who they are. Plus if she is behind a screen (not sure is she screened from entire court or just accused) she possibly won't even see them there.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 04, 2018, 02:13:31 PM
It may give her the impression its her v Ulster Rugby with those players landing in court
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 02:24:25 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 04, 2018, 01:45:52 PM

She said she didn't follow Ulster or Irish rugby, so how can she be intimidated by Best and Henderson if she doesn't know who they are. Plus if she is behind a screen (not sure is she screened from entire court or just accused) she possibly won't even see them there.

Despite Orior branding her as stupid, I imagine she's probably able to read.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 04, 2018, 02:36:04 PM
Don't see the big deal at all with Best attending court. Who should be in the public gallery?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on February 04, 2018, 02:44:15 PM
Did he take to the stand or just go to the trial?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 04, 2018, 01:19:55 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 04, 2018, 01:15:22 PM
Quote from: straightred on February 04, 2018, 12:05:33 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I'm not sure how his and Henderson's presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can't see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they're guilty as sin and he's closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn't follow rugby so she wouldn't know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn't follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too

Belfast is a small city. She knew well who these men were.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 04, 2018, 03:12:19 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 04, 2018, 01:19:55 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 04, 2018, 01:15:22 PM
Quote from: straightred on February 04, 2018, 12:05:33 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I'm not sure how his and Henderson's presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can't see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they're guilty as sin and he's closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn't follow rugby so she wouldn't know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn't follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too

Belfast is a small city. She knew well who these men were.

true I lived in Belfast and knew everyone there  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 04, 2018, 03:21:02 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 04, 2018, 01:19:55 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 04, 2018, 01:15:22 PM
Quote from: straightred on February 04, 2018, 12:05:33 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I'm not sure how his and Henderson's presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can't see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they're guilty as sin and he's closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn't follow rugby so she wouldn't know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn't follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too

Belfast is a small city. She knew well who these men were.

Bull-fûcking-shît.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LooseCannon on February 04, 2018, 03:44:29 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 04, 2018, 03:12:19 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 04, 2018, 01:19:55 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 04, 2018, 01:15:22 PM
Quote from: straightred on February 04, 2018, 12:05:33 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I'm not sure how his and Henderson's presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can't see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they're guilty as sin and he's closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn't follow rugby so she wouldn't know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn't follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too

Belfast is a small city. She knew well who these men were.

true I lived in Belfast and knew everyone there  ::)

I'd say that everyone knew you too!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 04:00:06 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 04, 2018, 03:12:19 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 04, 2018, 01:19:55 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 04, 2018, 01:15:22 PM
Quote from: straightred on February 04, 2018, 12:05:33 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I'm not sure how his and Henderson's presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can't see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they're guilty as sin and he's closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn't follow rugby so she wouldn't know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn't follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too

Belfast is a small city. She knew well who these men were.

true I lived in Belfast and knew everyone there  ::)
If you kept yourself in a world without TV newspaper and all other media its possible that you wouldnt have heard of these rugby players. So called celebrities are thin on the ground with exception of Julian Simmons and May McFetteridge. Rugby players who are pumped up on the media would of course be known to most people
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 04:01:42 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 04, 2018, 03:21:02 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 04, 2018, 01:19:55 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 04, 2018, 01:15:22 PM
Quote from: straightred on February 04, 2018, 12:05:33 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I'm not sure how his and Henderson's presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can't see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they're guilty as sin and he's closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn't follow rugby so she wouldn't know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn't follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too

Belfast is a small city. She knew well who these men were.

Bull-fûcking-shît.
Havent you some turf to be cutting before the E.U. closes you down?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 04:03:04 PM
Quote from: LooseCannon on February 04, 2018, 03:44:29 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 04, 2018, 03:12:19 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 04, 2018, 01:19:55 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 04, 2018, 01:15:22 PM
Quote from: straightred on February 04, 2018, 12:05:33 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I'm not sure how his and Henderson's presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can't see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they're guilty as sin and he's closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

I think we all should stay away from trying to second guess the verdict. You have to hope that the jury get that right.

I don't believe Best's statement. In my opinion a few PR professionals got their heads together and that was the best (pardon the pun) they could come up with. Its weak and that's no surprise because he simply shouldn't have been there and no amount of pr spin can change that. We'll move on and probably won't hear much more about this until the 6N is over if at all. I heard Marion Finucane's show earlier on RTE radio and she said that they weren't covering anything on this until after the trial is over. I know some are baying for blood but I think that is sensible. However I will qualify that by saying that I really hope the IRFU say something strong in due course
Why. The girl doesn't follow rugby so she wouldn't know he was anyway. From behind the screen.

Doesn't follow rugby? She knows these lads, that will come out too

Belfast is a small city. She knew well who these men were.

true I lived in Belfast and knew everyone there  ::)

I'd say that everyone knew you too!
Ah leave it out. He didnt know she was only 12.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 04, 2018, 04:05:43 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 02:24:25 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 04, 2018, 01:45:52 PM

She said she didn't follow Ulster or Irish rugby, so how can she be intimidated by Best and Henderson if she doesn't know who they are. Plus if she is behind a screen (not sure is she screened from entire court or just accused) she possibly won't even see them there.

Despite Orior branding her as stupid, I imagine she's probably able to read.

Ouch.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 04:28:44 PM
Quote from: hardstation on February 04, 2018, 04:06:35 PM
Never heard of Julian Wilson myself.
You're probably more of a May McFetteridge man
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 04, 2018, 04:45:52 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on February 04, 2018, 02:44:15 PM
Did he take to the stand or just go to the trial?
Just went to the trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 04, 2018, 04:58:53 PM
Just on the point a lot of people are making that why would she make it up?  There is plenty of cases that a person can believe they have been raped when they haven't.  Also conversely there is plenty of instances that a person can be raped and the accused believe that it wasn't rape.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 04, 2018, 06:10:34 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 04, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 10:39:15 AM
Anybody care to revise their opinion after hearing what Best said in his press conference yesterday evening??

What did he say?

He said he was asked to be a character witness and that he was advised to go to trial to hear the girl give evidence before he decided if he would do it or not. Also she gave her evidence behind a screen so I'm not sure how his and Henderson's presence would count as intimidation for those peddling that myth.

I can't see him giving a character witness it would be suicide for him plus the more I hear the more they're guilty as sin and he's closer to it so should know more than a lot of us. They should both do proper time!!

If Best's explanation holds true (and I severely doubt it) then if he doesn't appear as a character witness for Jackson and Olding now, it looks like he believes the girls version of events. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Armagh Girl on February 04, 2018, 06:31:20 PM
What a load of rubbish from Rory Best, (it is obvious that the IRFU made him say something as it wasn't going away) if you were going to give a Character Reference, that's exactly what it is A Character Reference of someone whom you know, he did not need to go anywhere near the court to be able to do so.  Whilst anyone can go to the Public Gallery, I personally believe he was stupid to do so, given his position.  Had Ireland been beaten yesterday, Rory would been under pressure to have been stripped of the Captaincy as the Media would have been baying for blood.  This Trial is due to last another 5 weeks and should end just before St Patrick's day so the English Media will no doubt be focusing on his actions again.  Innocent until proven guilly, but even if they did not rape this girl, their actions were disgusting for Glorified Sports Stars : :(  Not My Captain...Rory..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 06:52:10 PM
Any need for a Character Reference won't come into play until a conviction. In such circumstances Best and pals can have their say in an effort to influence the length of a sentence. If acquitted the former accused can ride away into the sunset. (no pun intended)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 04, 2018, 07:23:10 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 07:32:17 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 04, 2018, 07:23:10 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.

It's because he's the captain of the Irish rugby team and had a match in France four days later. Really not that hard to figure out.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 04, 2018, 07:40:58 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 07:32:17 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 04, 2018, 07:23:10 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.

It's because he's the captain of the Irish rugby team and had a match in France four days later. Really not that hard to figure out.

The last sentence of your reply is irrelevant. You have a canny knack of running down opinions which differ from yours.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on February 04, 2018, 07:46:25 PM
Yeahi thought that too. 4 days before the france game has nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 07:58:28 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 04, 2018, 07:40:58 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 07:32:17 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 04, 2018, 07:23:10 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.

It's because he's the captain of the Irish rugby team and had a match in France four days later. Really not that hard to figure out.

The last sentence of your reply is irrelevant. You have a canny knack of running down opinions which differ from yours.

Maybe I'm just dismissive of people who think an alleged rape victim was stupid because she didn't spend her Friday night constantly in fear of being raped.

Nrico2006 has a bit of a history when it comes to dismissing female victims of male violence, so forgive me for not taking his outage at how Rory Best has been criticised too seriously.

Quote from: imtommygunn on February 04, 2018, 07:46:25 PM
Yeahi thought that too. 4 days before the france game has nothing to do with it.

The four days before the France game thing has everything to do with it as it calls into question the role of the Irish management team and senior IRFU had in Best's (and Henderson's) decision to attend.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on February 04, 2018, 08:22:01 PM
Quote from: Armagh Girl on February 04, 2018, 06:31:20 PM
What a load of rubbish from Rory Best, (it is obvious that the IRFU made him say something as it wasn't going away) if you were going to give a Character Reference, that's exactly what it is A Character Reference of someone whom you know, he did not need to go anywhere near the court to be able to do so.  Whilst anyone can go to the Public Gallery, I personally believe he was stupid to do so, given his position.  Had Ireland been beaten yesterday, Rory would been under pressure to have been stripped of the Captaincy as the Media would have been baying for blood.  This Trial is due to last another 5 weeks and should end just before St Patrick's day so the English Media will no doubt be focusing on his actions again.  Innocent until proven guilly, but even if they did not rape this girl, their actions were disgusting for Glorified Sports Stars : :(  Not My Captain...Rory..

Best coming across as a brainless ape. Some "leader" he is.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on February 04, 2018, 08:26:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 07:32:17 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 04, 2018, 07:23:10 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.

It's because he's the captain of the Irish rugby team and had a match in France four days later. Really not that hard to figure out.

So you've no problem with Henderson attending? He's not captain.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 04, 2018, 08:30:59 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 04, 2018, 07:40:58 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 07:32:17 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 04, 2018, 07:23:10 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.

It's because he's the captain of the Irish rugby team and had a match in France four days later. Really not that hard to figure out.

The last sentence of your reply is irrelevant. You have a canny knack of running down opinions which differ from yours.

And all of the Ireland squad players finished with collective training on the previous evening and were given a day off before returning on the following day in final preparation and travelling to Paris.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 08:37:39 PM
Quote from: trileacman on February 04, 2018, 08:26:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 07:32:17 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 04, 2018, 07:23:10 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.

It's because he's the captain of the Irish rugby team and had a match in France four days later. Really not that hard to figure out.

So you've no problem with Henderson attending? He's not captain.

I was responding to a post that specifically referred to Best only. If you managed to read a bit further on you'd have seen me mention Henderson as well...

Good try though, better luck next time.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 08:57:46 PM
I really don't see what the big issue is. . . he hasn't come out in support of the 2 lads, he's said he's trying to listen to both sides before he makes his decision about giving a character witness should it come to that, he's gotten a day off from Ireland so can do what he pleases, the girls was behind a screen the whole time so the "witness intimidation" angle doesn't hold true either.

There are much more important things to do with this case rather than Best or Hendersons attendance!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 04, 2018, 09:23:03 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 08:57:46 PM
I really don't see what the big issue is. . . he hasn't come out in support of the 2 lads, he's said he's trying to listen to both sides before he makes his decision about giving a character witness should it come to that, he's gotten a day off from Ireland so can do what he pleases, the girls was behind a screen the whole time so the "witness intimidation" angle doesn't hold true either.

There are much more important things to do with this case rather than Best or Hendersons attendance!
I agree. It will come down to who is lying.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 10:29:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 04, 2018, 09:23:03 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 04, 2018, 08:57:46 PM
I really don't see what the big issue is. . . he hasn't come out in support of the 2 lads, he's said he's trying to listen to both sides before he makes his decision about giving a character witness should it come to that, he's gotten a day off from Ireland so can do what he pleases, the girls was behind a screen the whole time so the "witness intimidation" angle doesn't hold true either.

There are much more important things to do with this case rather than Best or Hendersons attendance!
I agree. It will come down to who is lying.

You mean who is the best liar
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 04, 2018, 11:40:09 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 06:52:10 PM
Any need for a Character Reference won't come into play until a conviction. In such circumstances Best and pals can have their say in an effort to influence the length of a sentence. If acquitted the former accused can ride away into the sunset. (no pun intended)

That's what I thought too - but doesn't that make Best's reason for going completely unbelievable?? He'll only need to give a character ref if they're guilty
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 11:43:53 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 04, 2018, 11:40:09 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 06:52:10 PM
Any need for a Character Reference won't come into play until a conviction. In such circumstances Best and pals can have their say in an effort to influence the length of a sentence. If acquitted the former accused can ride away into the sunset. (no pun intended)

That's what I thought too - but doesn't that make Best's reason for going completely unbelievable?? He'll only need to give a character ref if they're guilty
I suppose he feels he must be seen to stand by a colleague in a time of difficulty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 01:14:32 AM
What's the reasoning for believing that only one of the seniors will cross examine the current witness?  Has that been confirmed anywhere?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 04:22:39 AM
I thought Best's statement was an absolute disgrace. Even worse than his bad judgement in attending in the first place. If he was so concerned about getting the truth (a) I'm sure he can get full transcripts and (b) he'll only get to offer his character reference if they're found guilty. To me he's clearly bullshitting. It seems clear he didn't mention it to the IRFU and I'd say that he knew they'd stop him if he told them.

On the issue of their attendance - fair enough the girl may not have been able to see them but I'm sure she found out they were there and I'm also sure the jury saw them there. I dare say several members of the jury recognised Best at the very least.

I've lost any respect I had for Best. Whether these lads are guilty or not it was incredibly bad judgement to attend and then the follow up mealy mouthed statement was ten times worse.

The IRFU just come across as incompetent as usual.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 05, 2018, 08:53:18 AM
Best is a hooker and a farmer. He probably doesn't know much about PR or social  media momentum. The decision to go to the court was made independently but the IRFU had to manage the blowback with a huge match in 4 days. Tony O Reilly probably could have schmoozed the press but he is no longer on the team.
AnythinG Best said would be jumped on.And the match  And the social media. A total PR nightmare.

Kevin Myers and George Hook got caught up in social media outrages and got hurt.

In the old days the IRFU could have a word with the editor of the Irish Times...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 05, 2018, 09:43:02 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 11:43:53 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 04, 2018, 11:40:09 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 04, 2018, 06:52:10 PM
Any need for a Character Reference won't come into play until a conviction. In such circumstances Best and pals can have their say in an effort to influence the length of a sentence. If acquitted the former accused can ride away into the sunset. (no pun intended)

That's what I thought too - but doesn't that make Best's reason for going completely unbelievable?? He'll only need to give a character ref if they're guilty
I suppose he feels he must be seen to stand by a colleague in a time of difficulty.

Is he a colleague or a friend?  If a friend you could see why he attended, a bit of the old " love the sinner not the sin" attitude. If a colleague from Ulster and Ireland then it is different.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 05, 2018, 09:50:16 AM
Talk about losing sight of the court case, Best and Henderson will have no bearing on the case.. going was probably wrong but he's given his reasons, whether you care to believe him is up to you MS.. this trial will end horribly for everyone, except of course the lawyers..

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 12:21:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 05, 2018, 08:53:18 AM
Best is a hooker and a farmer. He probably doesn't know much about PR or social  media momentum. The decision to go to the court was made independently but the IRFU had to manage the blowback with a huge match in 4 days. Tony O Reilly probably could have schmoozed the press but he is no longer on the team.
AnythinG Best said would be jumped on.And the match  And the social media. A total PR nightmare.

Kevin Myers and George Hook got caught up in social media outrages and got hurt.

In the old days the IRFU could have a word with the editor of the Irish Times...

Cop yourself on seafoid! Those two got what they deserved. The fact that (sadly) many appear to share their opinions doesn't validate them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 05, 2018, 12:46:23 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 07:58:28 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 04, 2018, 07:40:58 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 04, 2018, 07:32:17 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 04, 2018, 07:23:10 PM
What is the obsession with Best turning up?  Who cares who he believes? His friend is on trial therefore he turns up for him. No big deal.

It's because he's the captain of the Irish rugby team and had a match in France four days later. Really not that hard to figure out.

The last sentence of your reply is irrelevant. You have a canny knack of running down opinions which differ from yours.

Maybe I'm just dismissive of people who think an alleged rape victim was stupid because she didn't spend her Friday night constantly in fear of being raped.

Nrico2006 has a bit of a history when it comes to dismissing female victims of male violence, so forgive me for not taking his outage at how Rory Best has been criticised too seriously.

Quote from: imtommygunn on February 04, 2018, 07:46:25 PM
Yeahi thought that too. 4 days before the france game has nothing to do with it.

The four days before the France game thing has everything to do with it as it calls into question the role of the Irish management team and senior IRFU had in Best's (and Henderson's) decision to attend.

Wise up. Players can do what they want in their spare time, Best going to a trial has no impact on a rubgy match four days later. First time i heard that im dismissive of violence towards females, not that i give a rats ass what you or anyone else thinks.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: angermanagement on February 05, 2018, 12:53:58 PM
Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
31m31 minutes ago
More
Re: Ireland and Ulster captain Rory Best's attendance last week Judge Patricia Smyth tells jury the only reason he was in court was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: NAG1 on February 05, 2018, 12:56:19 PM
Quote from: angermanagement on February 05, 2018, 12:53:58 PM
Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
31m31 minutes ago
More
Re: Ireland and Ulster captain Rory Best's attendance last week Judge Patricia Smyth tells jury the only reason he was in court was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel

That is going to throw the cat among the pigeons of those clamouring all over this at the weekend. I wonder will there be many retractions from some of the stuff spouted. I doubt it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on February 05, 2018, 01:08:52 PM
Quote from: NAG1 on February 05, 2018, 12:56:19 PM
Quote from: angermanagement on February 05, 2018, 12:53:58 PM
Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
31m31 minutes ago
More
Re: Ireland and Ulster captain Rory Best's attendance last week Judge Patricia Smyth tells jury the only reason he was in court was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel

That is going to throw the cat among the pigeons of those clamouring all over this at the weekend. I wonder will there be many retractions from some of the stuff spouted. I doubt it.

And there was me almost convinced that they only attended to hear both sides of the story and support a friend! He was there on the defenses request to either intimidate the accuser or effect the jury. If IRFU had any moral substance they'd get rid.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 05, 2018, 01:21:15 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 12:21:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 05, 2018, 08:53:18 AM
Best is a hooker and a farmer. He probably doesn't know much about PR or social  media momentum. The decision to go to the court was made independently but the IRFU had to manage the blowback with a huge match in 4 days. Tony O Reilly probably could have schmoozed the press but he is no longer on the team.
AnythinG Best said would be jumped on.And the match  And the social media. A total PR nightmare.

Kevin Myers and George Hook got caught up in social media outrages and got hurt.

In the old days the IRFU could have a word with the editor of the Irish Times...

Cop yourself on seafoid! Those two got what they deserved. The fact that (sadly) many appear to share their opinions doesn't validate them.
Myers may be insufferable but he did not deserve to lose his job .He was always pro Israel but the mob wanted a vicrim. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 01:47:02 PM
Quote from: NAG1 on February 05, 2018, 12:56:19 PM
Quote from: angermanagement on February 05, 2018, 12:53:58 PM
Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
31m31 minutes ago
More
Re: Ireland and Ulster captain Rory Best's attendance last week Judge Patricia Smyth tells jury the only reason he was in court was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel


That is going to throw the cat among the pigeons of those clamouring all over this at the weekend. I wonder will there be many retractions from some of the stuff spouted. I doubt it.

I think you need to re-read what that tweet says.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 05, 2018, 02:37:07 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 01:47:02 PM
Quote from: NAG1 on February 05, 2018, 12:56:19 PM
Quote from: angermanagement on February 05, 2018, 12:53:58 PM
Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
31m31 minutes ago
More
Re: Ireland and Ulster captain Rory Best's attendance last week Judge Patricia Smyth tells jury the only reason he was in court was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel

I think you need to re-read what that tweet says.

That is going to throw the cat among the pigeons of those clamouring all over this at the weekend. I wonder will there be many retractions from some of the stuff spouted. I doubt it.

So the judge corroborates what Best said in his statement . . . why is there more outrage about this again this morning?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 02:59:39 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:02:36 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 04:22:39 AM
I thought Best's statement was an absolute disgrace. Even worse than his bad judgement in attending in the first place. If he was so concerned about getting the truth (a) I'm sure he can get full transcripts and (b) he'll only get to offer his character reference if they're found guilty. To me he's clearly bullshitting. It seems clear he didn't mention it to the IRFU and I'd say that he knew they'd stop him if he told them.

On the issue of their attendance - fair enough the girl may not have been able to see them but I'm sure she found out they were there and I'm also sure the jury saw them there. I dare say several members of the jury recognised Best at the very least.

I've lost any respect I had for Best. Whether these lads are guilty or not it was incredibly bad judgement to attend and then the follow up mealy mouthed statement was ten times worse.

The IRFU just come across as incompetent as usual.

From BBC:

Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."


Well? 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 02:59:39 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:10:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 01:47:02 PM
Quote from: NAG1 on February 05, 2018, 12:56:19 PM
Quote from: angermanagement on February 05, 2018, 12:53:58 PM
Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
31m31 minutes ago
More
Re: Ireland and Ulster captain Rory Best's attendance last week Judge Patricia Smyth tells jury the only reason he was in court was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel


That is going to throw the cat among the pigeons of those clamouring all over this at the weekend. I wonder will there be many retractions from some of the stuff spouted. I doubt it.

I think you need to re-read what that tweet says.

And I think you need to retract all of the nonsense you have posted about Rory Best.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 03:10:42 PM
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.

OK legal eagles..."directed by senor counsel".  Does this mean "compelled" or "advised".   

Edit: I presume the senior counsel referred to here is the defence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 03:11:26 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:02:36 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 04:22:39 AM
I thought Best's statement was an absolute disgrace. Even worse than his bad judgement in attending in the first place. If he was so concerned about getting the truth (a) I'm sure he can get full transcripts and (b) he'll only get to offer his character reference if they're found guilty. To me he's clearly bullshitting. It seems clear he didn't mention it to the IRFU and I'd say that he knew they'd stop him if he told them.

On the issue of their attendance - fair enough the girl may not have been able to see them but I'm sure she found out they were there and I'm also sure the jury saw them there. I dare say several members of the jury recognised Best at the very least.

I've lost any respect I had for Best. Whether these lads are guilty or not it was incredibly bad judgement to attend and then the follow up mealy mouthed statement was ten times worse.

The IRFU just come across as incompetent as usual.

From BBC:

Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."


Well?

If the judge has to direct the jury about his attendance it kind of backs up what I was saying.

I cannot understand why he would have been directed to attend though. That's something I need to be convinced of a legitimate reason for. And if he was so directed - why not inform the IRFU?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:12:26 PM
Quote from: Armagh Girl on February 04, 2018, 06:31:20 PM
What a load of rubbish from Rory Best, (it is obvious that the IRFU made him say something as it wasn't going away) if you were going to give a Character Reference, that's exactly what it is A Character Reference of someone whom you know, he did not need to go anywhere near the court to be able to do so.  Whilst anyone can go to the Public Gallery, I personally believe he was stupid to do so, given his position.  Had Ireland been beaten yesterday, Rory would been under pressure to have been stripped of the Captaincy as the Media would have been baying for blood.  This Trial is due to last another 5 weeks and should end just before St Patrick's day so the English Media will no doubt be focusing on his actions again.  Innocent until proven guilly, but even if they did not rape this girl, their actions were disgusting for Glorified Sports Stars : :(  Not My Captain...Rory..

From BBC:
Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."

Any chance you might like to retract your second post on the Board?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 03:16:51 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:12:26 PM
Quote from: Armagh Girl on February 04, 2018, 06:31:20 PM
What a load of rubbish from Rory Best, (it is obvious that the IRFU made him say something as it wasn't going away) if you were going to give a Character Reference, that's exactly what it is A Character Reference of someone whom you know, he did not need to go anywhere near the court to be able to do so.  Whilst anyone can go to the Public Gallery, I personally believe he was stupid to do so, given his position.  Had Ireland been beaten yesterday, Rory would been under pressure to have been stripped of the Captaincy as the Media would have been baying for blood.  This Trial is due to last another 5 weeks and should end just before St Patrick's day so the English Media will no doubt be focusing on his actions again.  Innocent until proven guilly, but even if they did not rape this girl, their actions were disgusting for Glorified Sports Stars : :(  Not My Captain...Rory..

From BBC:
Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."

Any chance you might like to retract your second post on the Board?

What's your game? Are you going to go back the whole way through the thread and challenge everyone? I think you're reading this a little funnily if you think it makes everything ok. Armagh girl has nothing to retract....a perfectly reasonable position.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:19:40 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 03:11:26 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:02:36 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 04:22:39 AM
I thought Best's statement was an absolute disgrace. Even worse than his bad judgement in attending in the first place. If he was so concerned about getting the truth (a) I'm sure he can get full transcripts and (b) he'll only get to offer his character reference if they're found guilty. To me he's clearly bullshitting. It seems clear he didn't mention it to the IRFU and I'd say that he knew they'd stop him if he told them.

On the issue of their attendance - fair enough the girl may not have been able to see them but I'm sure she found out they were there and I'm also sure the jury saw them there. I dare say several members of the jury recognised Best at the very least.

I've lost any respect I had for Best. Whether these lads are guilty or not it was incredibly bad judgement to attend and then the follow up mealy mouthed statement was ten times worse.

The IRFU just come across as incompetent as usual.

From BBC:

Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."


Well?

If the judge has to direct the jury about his attendance it kind of backs up what I was saying.

I cannot understand why he would have been directed to attend though. That's something I need to be convinced of a legitimate reason for. And if he was so directed - why not inform the IRFU?

At an absolute minimum, it means that there can be no vindication for the character assassination of Rory Best as witnessed by the hysteria on social media and on this thread.  It was on the day off for the whole Ireland squad.

Keep wriggling.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:22:44 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 03:16:51 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:12:26 PM
Quote from: Armagh Girl on February 04, 2018, 06:31:20 PM
What a load of rubbish from Rory Best, (it is obvious that the IRFU made him say something as it wasn't going away) if you were going to give a Character Reference, that's exactly what it is A Character Reference of someone whom you know, he did not need to go anywhere near the court to be able to do so.  Whilst anyone can go to the Public Gallery, I personally believe he was stupid to do so, given his position.  Had Ireland been beaten yesterday, Rory would been under pressure to have been stripped of the Captaincy as the Media would have been baying for blood.  This Trial is due to last another 5 weeks and should end just before St Patrick's day so the English Media will no doubt be focusing on his actions again.  Innocent until proven guilly, but even if they did not rape this girl, their actions were disgusting for Glorified Sports Stars : :(  Not My Captain...Rory..

From BBC:
Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."

Any chance you might like to retract your second post on the Board?

What's your game? Are you going to go back the whole way through the thread and challenge everyone? I think you're reading this a little funnily if you think it makes everything ok. Armagh girl has nothing to retract....a perfectly reasonable position.

Just highlighting a few of the many of those who jumped in feet first to criticise and attack the judgement and character of Rory Best.  It highlights the hysterical reaction that social media engenders, the lack of evidence such hysteria is built on and the damage it can do to individuals.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 03:34:40 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 02:59:39 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 05, 2018, 03:35:53 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:22:44 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 03:16:51 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:12:26 PM
Quote from: Armagh Girl on February 04, 2018, 06:31:20 PM
What a load of rubbish from Rory Best, (it is obvious that the IRFU made him say something as it wasn't going away) if you were going to give a Character Reference, that's exactly what it is A Character Reference of someone whom you know, he did not need to go anywhere near the court to be able to do so.  Whilst anyone can go to the Public Gallery, I personally believe he was stupid to do so, given his position.  Had Ireland been beaten yesterday, Rory would been under pressure to have been stripped of the Captaincy as the Media would have been baying for blood.  This Trial is due to last another 5 weeks and should end just before St Patrick's day so the English Media will no doubt be focusing on his actions again.  Innocent until proven guilly, but even if they did not rape this girl, their actions were disgusting for Glorified Sports Stars : :(  Not My Captain...Rory..

From BBC:
Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."

Any chance you might like to retract your second post on the Board?

What's your game? Are you going to go back the whole way through the thread and challenge everyone? I think you're reading this a little funnily if you think it makes everything ok. Armagh girl has nothing to retract....a perfectly reasonable position.

Just highlighting a few of the many of those who jumped in feet first to criticise and attack the judgement and character of Rory Best.  It highlights the hysterical reaction that social media engenders, the lack of evidence such hysteria is built on and the damage it can do to individuals.

I'm not sure exactly how this vindicates Best from anything. I think we can presume that he was directed to attend the trial by senior counsel for the defendent. Now I'm no legal expert but I'd be reasonably sure that doesn't mean that he was duty bound to attend. And if he was 'directed' to attend, exatly what was his modus operandi? It looks very much like he (and Henderson) allowed himself to be used as a weapon/tactic for the defence to make a statement that they have friends in high places. Silent intimidation of the girl and a statement to the jury if you like. The optics of the whole appearance were very poor and Best made a crass misjudgement at best (pardon the pun).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 03:39:55 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 03:34:40 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 02:59:39 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 03:45:12 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 02:59:39 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

"virtue signaller", "mainstream media"

You guys do realise that you may as well tatoo I-am-totally-biased-against-the-woman on your foreheads when you use alt-right buzz words like that? Anyone who knows the history of the terms knows very well the sort of mindset that is attached to those who use them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 05, 2018, 03:50:35 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 03:45:12 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 02:59:39 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

"virtue signaller", "mainstream media"

You guys do realise that you may as well tatoo I-am-totally-biased-against-the-woman on your foreheads when you use alt-right buzz words like that? Anyone who knows the history of the terms knows very well the sort of mindset that is attached to those who use them.
You are thick
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 03:51:29 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on February 05, 2018, 03:35:53 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:22:44 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 03:16:51 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:12:26 PM
Quote from: Armagh Girl on February 04, 2018, 06:31:20 PM
What a load of rubbish from Rory Best, (it is obvious that the IRFU made him say something as it wasn't going away) if you were going to give a Character Reference, that's exactly what it is A Character Reference of someone whom you know, he did not need to go anywhere near the court to be able to do so.  Whilst anyone can go to the Public Gallery, I personally believe he was stupid to do so, given his position.  Had Ireland been beaten yesterday, Rory would been under pressure to have been stripped of the Captaincy as the Media would have been baying for blood.  This Trial is due to last another 5 weeks and should end just before St Patrick's day so the English Media will no doubt be focusing on his actions again.  Innocent until proven guilly, but even if they did not rape this girl, their actions were disgusting for Glorified Sports Stars : :(  Not My Captain...Rory..

From BBC:
Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury "the only reason" that Rory Best attended the trial was that "he was directed to be here by senior counsel".
"I want to make it absolutely clear to you - and clear to the public - the only reason why Mr Rory Best was in this court last week was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel," said the judge.
"That's the only reason why he was here. And as a jury, you should know that."

Any chance you might like to retract your second post on the Board?

What's your game? Are you going to go back the whole way through the thread and challenge everyone? I think you're reading this a little funnily if you think it makes everything ok. Armagh girl has nothing to retract....a perfectly reasonable position.

Just highlighting a few of the many of those who jumped in feet first to criticise and attack the judgement and character of Rory Best.  It highlights the hysterical reaction that social media engenders, the lack of evidence such hysteria is built on and the damage it can do to individuals.

I'm not sure exactly how this vindicates Best from anything. I think we can presume that he was directed to attend the trial by senior counsel for the defendent. Now I'm no legal expert but I'd be reasonably sure that doesn't mean that he was duty bound to attend. And if he was 'directed' to attend, exatly what was his modus operandi? It looks very much like he (and Henderson) allowed himself to be used as a weapon/tactic for the defence to make a statement that they have friends in high places. Silent intimidation of the girl and a statement to the jury if you like. The optics of the whole appearance were very poor and Best made a crass misjudgement at best (pardon the pun).

Absolutely right and correct. And there are some unsavoury conclusions that could be reasonably be drawn on top of that. If anything the latest news makes things look worse for me.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 05, 2018, 03:53:24 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 03:39:55 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 03:34:40 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 02:59:39 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.

He said he's been called as a character witness and was advised he should go to hear both sides . . . should he not hear both sides before he makes up his mind?! Does this suddenly make him a rape apologist?

I wasn't online much over the weekend but this #notmycaptain bullshit is exactly that!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 05, 2018, 03:57:53 PM
Who claimed he was a rape apologist?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 05, 2018, 04:00:39 PM
People should really stop commenting on "Live Cases" based on condensed reporting. You just end up looking stupid. I still by my prejudicial comments.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on February 05, 2018, 04:03:24 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 05, 2018, 03:53:24 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 03:39:55 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 03:34:40 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 02:59:39 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.

He said he's been called as a character witness and was advised he should go to hear both sides . . . should he not hear both sides before he makes up his mind?! Does this suddenly make him a rape apologist?

I wasn't online much over the weekend but this #notmycaptain bullshit is exactly that!!

So he is asked to attend the court so he might form an opinion on the character of the accused in case he has to give a statement on it.

Here is the key question - Why would Counsel ask Best and Henderson to attend?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 05, 2018, 04:06:15 PM
'Directed by senior counsel'- in other words this was a tactic by the defence to influence things, no shadow of a doubt about that. Unless Best has no back bone he can make up his own mind what to do. He did not have to attend. He is not giving evidence and had no part of the substantive part of the case. He did not have to attend. He did so of his own volition and could have said to the SC that he was unsure if he should attend. HE DID NOT HAVE TO ATTEND. As someone whose has worked these types of trials it's all about causing any flicker of doubt in the juries mind. The fact the judge had to comment on it is extraordinary and perhaps was a direct request from the jury. Hearts and minds, folks, hearts and minds.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 04:07:43 PM
Quote from: Itchy on February 05, 2018, 04:03:24 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 05, 2018, 03:53:24 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 03:39:55 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 03:34:40 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 02:59:39 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.

He said he's been called as a character witness and was advised he should go to hear both sides . . . should he not hear both sides before he makes up his mind?! Does this suddenly make him a rape apologist?

I wasn't online much over the weekend but this #notmycaptain bullshit is exactly that!!

So he is asked to attend the court so he might form an opinion on the character of the accused in case he has to give a statement on it.

Here is the key question - Why would Counsel ask Best and Henderson to attend?

No legitimate reason has been mentioned so no wonder people are speculating. I know what I think.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 04:08:35 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 05, 2018, 04:06:15 PM
'Directed by senior counsel'- in other words this was a tactic by the defence to influence things, no shadow of a doubt about that. Unless Best has no back bone he can make up his own mind what to do. He did not have to attend. He is not giving evidence and had no part of the substantive part of the case. He did not have to attend. He did so of his own volition and could have said to the SC that he was unit sure if he should attend. HE DID NOT HAVE TO ATTEND. As someone whose has worked these types of trials it's all about causing any flicker of doubt in the juries mind. The fact the judge had to comment on it is extraordinary and perhaps was a direct request from the jury. Hearts and minds, folks, hearts and minds.

Well said.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 05, 2018, 04:08:48 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 05, 2018, 03:53:24 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 03:39:55 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 03:34:40 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 02:59:39 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.

He said he's been called as a character witness and was advised he should go to hear both sides . . . should he not hear both sides before he makes up his mind?! Does this suddenly make him a rape apologist?

I wasn't online much over the weekend but this #notmycaptain bullshit is exactly that!!
How can you hear both sides in one day?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 04:13:14 PM
Maybe he meant hear from both sides of his head. The idea the defence lawyers have any interest in their character witness hearing from the victim is so laughable only a very simple person couldn't see the gapping hole that exposes it as a lame excuse.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 04:16:08 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 04:13:14 PM
Maybe he meant hear from both sides of his head. The idea the defence lawyers have any interest in their character witness hearing from the victim is so laughable only a very simple person couldn't see the gapping hole that exposes it as a lame excuse.

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 05, 2018, 04:16:15 PM
So why didnt Best state this instead of having to wait for the judge to explain it, or why didnt the "directing" SC explain it and save the furore.


has henderson the same justification
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 04:23:16 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 05, 2018, 03:53:24 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 03:39:55 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 03:34:40 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 05, 2018, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 02:59:39 PM
I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.

He said he's been called as a character witness and was advised he should go to hear both sides . . . should he not hear both sides before he makes up his mind?! Does this suddenly make him a rape apologist?

I wasn't online much over the weekend but this #notmycaptain bullshit is exactly that!!

In that case it will be interesting to see if he attends should Jackson and/or Olding take the stand.  I never said he was a rape apologist.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on February 05, 2018, 04:29:23 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 05, 2018, 04:08:35 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 05, 2018, 04:06:15 PM
'Directed by senior counsel'- in other words this was a tactic by the defence to influence things, no shadow of a doubt about that. Unless Best has no back bone he can make up his own mind what to do. He did not have to attend. He is not giving evidence and had no part of the substantive part of the case. He did not have to attend. He did so of his own volition and could have said to the SC that he was unit sure if he should attend. HE DID NOT HAVE TO ATTEND. As someone whose has worked these types of trials it's all about causing any flicker of doubt in the juries mind. The fact the judge had to comment on it is extraordinary and perhaps was a direct request from the jury. Hearts and minds, folks, hearts and minds.

Well said.

Exactly. A cynical attempt to influence the jury in a rape trial and the Ireland Rugby captain obliges.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 05, 2018, 04:31:42 PM
Jesus, there is more attention on Best and Henderson than there is on the actual case... if this was a move by the defence to draw attention away. then good move, its worked by the looks of things..

As all the muppets are more concerned (at the minute) on what Best did or should have done or not done!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 05, 2018, 04:33:27 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 04:39:50 PM
He doesn't need to guess what the motives of a defence counsel are, Dinny, it's in their name. Defence.

You're either saying he's braindead stupid or he knew full well he was being used as a tool to portray the image the defence counsel wanted of their clients. Pick your poison because it's one or the other.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 05, 2018, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 05, 2018, 04:33:27 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.

so are you saying farmers are stupid ???????
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 05, 2018, 04:46:46 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 05, 2018, 04:33:27 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.

Maybe someone will correct me but I can't believe that he didn't have a choice whether to attend. Surely the directive from senior counsel isn't a compulsory one?



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 04:49:01 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 05, 2018, 04:33:27 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.

"Farmer rugby player"??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 05, 2018, 04:50:02 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on February 05, 2018, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 05, 2018, 04:33:27 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.

so are you saying farmers are stupid ???????

I don't even know what the relevance of his occupation has to the argument but Rory Best is not a stupid fellow and I can't imagine that he would not have been well aware of the consequences of his decision to attend in terms of the statement that it sent. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 05, 2018, 04:51:10 PM
whats the relevance of Bests priveleged background ??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 05, 2018, 04:51:57 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 05, 2018, 04:33:27 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.

not that long ago Rory Best was in an eating place in Lurgan. Plenty of people recognised him
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 05:06:27 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on February 05, 2018, 04:51:57 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 05, 2018, 04:33:27 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.

not that long ago Rory Best was in an eating place in Lurgan. Plenty of people recognised him

He can't be that clever, so!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 05:08:45 PM
I ask again are we sure it was senior for the defence who directed he attend. If it was. Which senior?  We are again assuming a lot here.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 05:10:15 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 05:08:45 PM
I ask again are we sure it was senior for the defence who directed he attend. If it was. Which senior?  We are again assuming a lot here.

Oh, Jesus. Come on. Do you need it written in blood on the courtroom wall or something?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 05, 2018, 05:13:20 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 05:06:27 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on February 05, 2018, 04:51:57 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on February 05, 2018, 04:33:27 PM
How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.

not that long ago Rory Best was in an eating place in Lurgan. Plenty of people recognised him

He can't be that clever, so!

Oi. Lurgan is full of great eateries
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 05, 2018, 05:17:10 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 05:08:45 PM
I ask again are we sure it was senior for the defence who directed he attend. If it was. Which senior?  We are again assuming a lot here.

Of course we are assuming but why on earth would the prosecution direct Rory Best and Henderson to attend the trial?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 05:26:42 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 05:08:45 PM
I ask again are we sure it was senior for the defence who directed he attend. If it was. Which senior?  We are again assuming a lot here.

From the Irish Times report:

At the outset of Monday's hearing there was legal discussion of media reporting of how Mr Best attended the trial last Wednesday.  The court was told Mr Best attended the hearing because he was instructed to be present by lawyers involved in the case. The matter was raised by lawyers for the defence.  It was agreed that this fact should be reported by the press.

It doesn't say it directly, but I think this infers he was "instructed" to attend by the defence?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 05, 2018, 06:09:52 PM
If he was there on the instruction of the defence why did the explanation only come out on Monday, 5 days later? Why was it brought up in the rugby presser?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 06:10:20 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 05:26:42 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 05:08:45 PM
I ask again are we sure it was senior for the defence who directed he attend. If it was. Which senior?  We are again assuming a lot here.

From the Irish Times report:

At the outset of Monday's hearing there was legal discussion of media reporting of how Mr Best attended the trial last Wednesday.  The court was told Mr Best attended the hearing because he was instructed to be present by lawyers involved in the case. The matter was raised by lawyers for the defence.  It was agreed that this fact should be reported by the press.

It doesn't say it directly, but I think this infers he was "instructed" to attend by the defence?

That suggests the opposite to me but regardless it still not clear if it was one of the defence seniors which one. I again go back to my earlier point that I am always reluctant to believe press reports of cases given previous experience
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 05, 2018, 07:07:23 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 06:10:20 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 05, 2018, 05:26:42 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 05, 2018, 05:08:45 PM
I ask again are we sure it was senior for the defence who directed he attend. If it was. Which senior?  We are again assuming a lot here.

From the Irish Times report:

At the outset of Monday's hearing there was legal discussion of media reporting of how Mr Best attended the trial last Wednesday.  The court was told Mr Best attended the hearing because he was instructed to be present by lawyers involved in the case. The matter was raised by lawyers for the defence.  It was agreed that this fact should be reported by the press.

It doesn't say it directly, but I think this infers he was "instructed" to attend by the defence?

That suggests the opposite to me but regardless it still not clear if it was one of the defence seniors which one. I again go back to my earlier point that I am always reluctant to believe press reports of cases given previous experience

Just refer to Judge Dredd, or Syferus as he's know here!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 05, 2018, 07:09:46 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 05, 2018, 06:09:52 PM
If he was there on the instruction of the defence why did the explanation only come out on Monday, 5 days later? Why was it brought up in the rugby presser?

Because the judge felt the need to address it, either because of a query by a juror or by her own volition. Try to keep up, Sea.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 05, 2018, 08:29:21 PM
The reasoning that they was going because he was asked to give a character reference is patently bullsh*t for two reasons - firstly, a character reference is prohibited from mentioning the case at hand (it's already been decided by the jury at that time) and secondly, are they really going to garner enough information by attending one day of a 5 week trial to change their opinion of a guy they've known pretty well for 5+ years?

As I said previously, they were at best foolish & misguided in attending and I find it hard to believe they didn't realise that this would cause a storm.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 05, 2018, 09:13:04 PM
When do Best and Henderson get sentenced? Was there not a couple of other fellas involved at one stage?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: square_ball on February 05, 2018, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 05, 2018, 09:13:04 PM
When do Best and Henderson get sentenced? Was there not a couple of other fellas involved at one stage?

They're going to let them get the 6 nations out of the road first and then I believe there is a public stoning at city hall planned for 18th March #stillmycaptain
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 05, 2018, 10:40:28 PM
Can we get a full attendance sheet of all those who have been so far? Be interested to see who else should get attacked. You can go to a trial if you want, just out of interest. Or you could go if a friend is accused of something, for a bit of support etc. On another note, wonder if the defence have evidence that the girl is a rugby follower and knows who Jackson is?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 05, 2018, 11:20:33 PM
Clare Byrne was discussing how a similar rape case in Ireland would have been a private trial. The fact that it's a high profile case for nvolving sports stars has led to far too much discussion in the public domain and it's easy to see where the girl is coming from when fearing that she was going up against Ulster rugby from the outset.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:03:13 AM
From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". It seems it will be key if one side can get the jury to believe their version of why the girl returned to the room. After that you're trying to prove consent or lack of it on the basis of body language. The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?

I don't think the argument that she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine is necessarily true either. Feelings of humiliation and regret could lead to a false accusation.
The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's perfectly logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered and not reported but the details in the public domain are way too thin at this stage for anyone other than narrow-minded gobshites to have made up their minds.

The texts and WhatsApp messages prove nothing other than that they are arsèholes.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers". I don't think either argument would stand up in court though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 06, 2018, 12:22:22 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers". I don't think either argument would stand up in court though.

This logic only works if you somehow think they are both capable of rape and yet not capable of being callous animals. Pure nonsense.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:33:47 AM
You could say the messages make them callous animals regardless but if they had any fear of police involvement they wouldn't have been sending messages like that. It seemingly never crossed their minds that the police would get involved.

It's nonsensical in relation to the case but no more so than your argument that she wouldn't go through with it if she hadn't been raped ( I can't remember if it was you that posted it but I assume it was).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 06, 2018, 01:18:50 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers".
No, I really don't think you could.

It takes slightly more bravery to put yourself through a tortuous process lasting over 18 months which ends in a trial in which you are exposed to exhaustive and extremely difficult cross examination and a public which is intent on violating your right to anonymity, than it does to fire off a few obnoxious, hungover text messages to your mates.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 01:37:07 AM
I would love to know what rugby people like Neil Francis think about the story. I was reading Paul Kimmage's article about Tom Humphries a while ago. It went out of control even though on the surface everything looked normal. At the end nobody supported him.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 07:24:13 AM
I'll repost this as I would be interested to hear what those who have already decided that Jackson is guilty think......

From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?


The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time she was in the room but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered but not reported.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: DuffleKing on February 06, 2018, 07:30:55 AM
We haven't a full picture as I'm going on the court reportings but my view at the moment based on the detail I know is that I would struggle to convict.

The juror have heard the girl directly give evidence, which would be key for me, but to end these lads lives as they know them I would need convincing around a few things:

Why did she go back upstairs into Jackson's bedroom?
Was there really resistance to this coupling?
The text messaging around this time suggests that something beyond the initial coupling may have been discussed before Olding arrived on the scene.
Knowing modern societal norms now, this is not a ridiculous scenario.
She seems to have been just sitting around when defendant 3 arrived and decided that was too much.

I say all of this as someone who knows and despises 'Ulster Rugby' and the culture around their players at first hand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TyroneOnlooker on February 06, 2018, 08:05:12 AM
Reading through this thread would put years on you! It's amazing the number of legal experts that read this board as well.

A few things I would note;
1.I don't think any contributors have been sitting in the court room each day so we're only going on the newspaper reports which obviously won't be the full story. But I fail to see how anyone could firm to a firm conclusion either way at this point. The prosecution case made the alleged perpetrators look bad. The defence will now try and put doubt on that story and make the alleged victim look bad. This is a serious matter affecting peoples lives. Wait to the end before making judgements about people.
2.I have seen photos which apparently show the victim involved. Who knows if they are real or not. Either way, whatever way a girl is dresses DOES NOT indicate she is fair game or somehow brought this on herself. Crazy attitude to take.
3.Best and Henderson - advised/directed by senior counsel to attend. Unless I'm mistaken, barristers do not have any power to compel anyone to go to court so this can be construed as the defendant's barristers asked them to attend and they duly agreed. You could look at this two ways. Firstly, a move by the defence to create the media hysteria we've seen, take attention away from Jackson etc and secondly, it also seems like common sense. You're considering providing a character witness for someone accused of rape. Would you not want to hear both sides of the story, get a sense for the thing before you do that? I know i would.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 08:10:51 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 06, 2018, 01:18:50 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers".
No, I really don't think you could.

It takes slightly more bravery to put yourself through a tortuous process lasting over 18 months which ends in a trial in which you are exposed to exhaustive and extremely difficult cross examination and a public which is intent on violating your right to anonymity, than it does to fire off a few obnoxious, hungover text messages to your mates.
You're misinterpreting me there Sid - Maybe I could have worded it better.

My point is that one could argue that the lads wouldn't have sent those messages if they thought the police might come knocking. It's not a factual argument but I was making it to highlight the pointlessness of the "she wouldn't go through with it unless she was genuine" argument, when there are verifiable examples of cases where girls have seen false claims through to the bitter end, usually through feelings of regret and humiliation, regardless of how harrowing the process is.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 06, 2018, 08:31:58 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 07:24:13 AM
I'll repost this as I would be interested to hear what those who have already decided that Jackson is guilty think......

From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?


The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time she was in the room but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered but not reported.
I thought I read that she said something like "no not him as well" when Olding walked in??  Open to correction though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 08:43:12 AM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/nicola-anderson-consent-at-the-heart-of-testimony-as-alleged-victim-gives-evidence-36571998.html
"
At its heart lay the crucial issue of consent - had it ever existed in the contact between Irish international Paddy Jackson and the young woman at the centre of these rape claims?

Brendan Kelly, Mr Jackson's barrister, suggested that it had.

She had been "fixated" on the rugby player, had been "desperate" to attend his party and had been "staring at him" all night, and followed him into the kitchen several times, he put it to her.

At times throughout the day, the young woman became emotional as she insisted that she had never consented to what she claims occurred that night.

So why not ring your friends and tell them to come?" he queried.

"I didn't think it was appropriate because it wasn't my house," she replied.

"So there was nothing wrong with the party," Mr Kelly stated."

Kelly was on a bit of a shaky scraw
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 06, 2018, 08:49:11 AM
This thread is definitely Lord of the Flies territory and we all know who Jack, leader of the hunters is.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 06, 2018, 09:04:59 AM
A couple of longstanding Board elders are absolutely embarrassing themselves on this thread.

On the reporting so far, the girl appears to be handling herself pretty well under examination.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 06, 2018, 09:09:15 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 08:10:51 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 06, 2018, 01:18:50 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers".
No, I really don't think you could.

It takes slightly more bravery to put yourself through a tortuous process lasting over 18 months which ends in a trial in which you are exposed to exhaustive and extremely difficult cross examination and a public which is intent on violating your right to anonymity, than it does to fire off a few obnoxious, hungover text messages to your mates.
You're misinterpreting me there Sid - Maybe I could have worded it better.

My point is that one could argue that the lads wouldn't have sent those messages if they thought the police might come knocking. It's not a factual argument but I was making it to highlight the pointlessness of the "she wouldn't go through with it unless she was genuine" argument, when there are verifiable examples of cases where girls have seen false claims through to the bitter end, usually through feelings of regret and humiliation, regardless of how harrowing the process is.

they could have thought the girl would never go to the police or that their "stardom" would keep them safe?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 09:30:42 AM
Quote from: tonto1888 on February 06, 2018, 09:09:15 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 08:10:51 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 06, 2018, 01:18:50 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Regarding the "she wouldn't go through all this unless she was genuine" argument, you could just as reasonably argue that if the lads thought for a second that they had raped a girl they wouldn't have been sending messages about "spit roasts" and being "top shaggers".
No, I really don't think you could.

It takes slightly more bravery to put yourself through a tortuous process lasting over 18 months which ends in a trial in which you are exposed to exhaustive and extremely difficult cross examination and a public which is intent on violating your right to anonymity, than it does to fire off a few obnoxious, hungover text messages to your mates.
You're misinterpreting me there Sid - Maybe I could have worded it better.

My point is that one could argue that the lads wouldn't have sent those messages if they thought the police might come knocking. It's not a factual argument but I was making it to highlight the pointlessness of the "she wouldn't go through with it unless she was genuine" argument, when there are verifiable examples of cases where girls have seen false claims through to the bitter end, usually through feelings of regret and humiliation, regardless of how harrowing the process is.

they could have thought the girl would never go to the police or that their "stardom" would keep them safe?
Absolutely possible. That's why it's a pointless argument. Just as "why would she put herself through all this unless she was raped?" is.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Walter Cronc on February 06, 2018, 09:46:59 AM
Lesson learned lads! :o
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on February 06, 2018, 11:37:49 AM
Haven't been following this too closely but as an observation from from the newspaper reports she seems to come across as very articulate and intelligent. Definitely doesn't seem to fit the stereotype for the "footballer chasing wag wannabe " that the UK tabloids love.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 11:41:04 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 07:24:13 AM
I'll repost this as I would be interested to hear what those who have already decided that Jackson is guilty think......

From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?


The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time she was in the room but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered but not reported.


BUT as I said in another post, Jackson and the girl had consentually kissed in the bedroom, Paddy went to take it further and was rebuked by the girl who then went downstairs. She put on her shoes, about to leave, but realising she's left her bag in the bedroom went up to get it with Jackson following her and forcing herself upon her.

This is obviously her version of events, but Paddy may be caught out if the first part is true and she did knock him back and leave the room. What made Paddy think she'd changed her mind????
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 06, 2018, 11:49:16 AM
Who knows what really happen, by all accounts they had been drinking from early and into the wee hours. She has said herself that things are a bit hazy. When you drink that much you do lose some recollection of events..

Now lets see who bites first..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:06:06 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 11:41:04 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 07:24:13 AM
I'll repost this as I would be interested to hear what those who have already decided that Jackson is guilty think......

From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?


The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time she was in the room but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered but not reported.


BUT as I said in another post, Jackson and the girl had consentually kissed in the bedroom, Paddy went to take it further and was rebuked by the girl who then went downstairs. She put on her shoes, about to leave, but realising she's left her bag in the bedroom went up to get it with Jackson following her and forcing herself upon her.

This is obviously her version of events, but Paddy may be caught out if the first part is true and she did knock him back and leave the room. What made Paddy think she'd changed her mind????
Fair point Johnny but even if Jackson knew she was planning to leave(and I'm not sure it's clear that he did) and was just coming back for her bag, he might have chanced his arm at trying to carry on the kissing and it could have gone from there. Did she do anything, verbal or non-verbal, to show she didn't want to? Did she just freeze and do and say nothing (in which case it's still rape)? If I was a juror I'd want to hear more detail. And if she did freeze I'd like to know what was different from the first time when she told him no.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 12:49:44 PM
 :) I'm not sure that walking in on a couple having consensual sex  and joining in is a "legitimate threesome". I'll bow to your experience on that one Tony.

From what I've heard so far I would consider Jackson as having a better case for being exonerated than the others.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 06, 2018, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?

Maybe it's that easy access to online porn, and not knowing the difference between fantasy and reality.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Perhaps Olding thought it was a rolling maul. Milton Friedman said everything reminded him.of the money supply. Maybe everything reminds Olding of rugby.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 01:22:46 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 06, 2018, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?

Maybe it's that easy access to online porn, and not knowing the difference between fantasy and reality.

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/oct/21/lucy-kirkwood-nsfw-pornography-play-interview

"Boys are being force-fed this very plastic sexuality on a mass scale. It is not something they have found for themselves in a way. There is no discovery. The internet says, you know, 'The rest of your life you will find enormous boobs out there.' The question is how do you kind of reboot. "
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on February 06, 2018, 01:43:27 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Perhaps Olding thought it was a rolling maul. Milton Friedman said everything reminded him.of the money supply. Maybe everything reminds Olding of rugby.

I mustn't be watching rugby close enough
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 02:11:31 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Perhaps Olding thought it was a rolling maul. Milton Friedman said everything reminded him.of the money supply. Maybe everything reminds Olding of rugby.
Wrong thread to be laughing at but that rolling maul line had me in tears.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 06, 2018, 02:12:37 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Perhaps Olding thought it was a rolling maul. Milton Friedman said everything reminded him.of the money supply. Maybe everything reminds Olding of rugby.

For the guy whining about capitalism and fighting for the small man you seem to think lame Tony Feron-esque jokes in a rape trial thread are a-ok. Wow.

Not surprised Asal Mor found it hillarious.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: WT4E on February 06, 2018, 02:14:42 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?

Best post I've read in a while!   :D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 02:30:01 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 06, 2018, 02:12:37 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Perhaps Olding thought it was a rolling maul. Milton Friedman said everything reminded him.of the money supply. Maybe everything reminds Olding of rugby.

For the guy whining about capitalism and fighting for the small man you seem to think lame Tony Feron-esque jokes in a rape trial thread are a-ok. Wow.

Not surprised Asal Mor found it hillarious.
I,  on the other hand,  am stunned that you used it as an opportunity to jump up on your high horse and pontificate.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 06, 2018, 02:31:25 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 02:30:01 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 06, 2018, 02:12:37 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Perhaps Olding thought it was a rolling maul. Milton Friedman said everything reminded him.of the money supply. Maybe everything reminds Olding of rugby.

For the guy whining about capitalism and fighting for the small man you seem to think lame Tony Feron-esque jokes in a rape trial thread are a-ok. Wow.

Not surprised Asal Mor found it hillarious.
I,  on the other hand,  am stunned that you used it as an opportunity to jump up on your high horse and pontificate.

Yawn.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 02:44:02 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 02:30:01 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 06, 2018, 02:12:37 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.
Perhaps Olding thought it was a rolling maul. Milton Friedman said everything reminded him.of the money supply. Maybe everything reminds Olding of rugby.

For the guy whining about capitalism and fighting for the small man you seem to think lame Tony Feron-esque jokes in a rape trial thread are a-ok. Wow.

Not surprised Asal Mor found it hillarious.
I,  on the other hand,  am stunned that you used it as an opportunity to jump up on your high horse and pontificate.
It's par for the course
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 02:46:47 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?
Well exactly.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 04:34:28 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 01:22:46 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 06, 2018, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?

Maybe it's that easy access to online porn, and not knowing the difference between fantasy and reality.

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/oct/21/lucy-kirkwood-nsfw-pornography-play-interview

"Boys are being force-fed this very plastic sexuality on a mass scale. It is not something they have found for themselves in a way. There is no discovery. The internet says, you know, 'The rest of your life you will find enormous boobs out there.' The question is how do you kind of reboot. "

Pammy Anderson of all people was making this point a while back on some talk show or other.

young males with access to free porn have a skewed sense of what is normal it seems.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 06, 2018, 05:49:19 PM
How many posters to this thread in their mid twenties or younger?

Most I would venture are late thirties and much older.  It is a generational values problem that faces the jury as most are probably older and even much older than the defendants and the plaintiff.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 07:03:05 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 06, 2018, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?

Maybe it's that easy access to online porn, and not knowing the difference between fantasy and reality.
Quote from: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 04:34:28 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 06, 2018, 01:22:46 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 06, 2018, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 06, 2018, 12:42:38 PM
Are Olding and Jackson's defences tied together? As yet woman said she just froze etc. and didn't give the appearance of someone being raped, surely Olding could say that when he came into the room they appeared to be having consensual sex and therefore was joining into what was a legitimate threesome.

I know chivalry is dead, but do you just go ahead and stick your díck in someones mouth without some sort of tet-a-tet?

Maybe it's that easy access to online porn, and not knowing the difference between fantasy and reality.

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/oct/21/lucy-kirkwood-nsfw-pornography-play-interview

"Boys are being force-fed this very plastic sexuality on a mass scale. It is not something they have found for themselves in a way. There is no discovery. The internet says, you know, 'The rest of your life you will find enormous boobs out there.' The question is how do you kind of reboot. "

Pammy Anderson of all people was making this point a while back on some talk show or other.

young males with access to free porn have a skewed sense of what is normal it seems.
I Wonder if the prosecution will cover the porn angle

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/sep/28/boy-seen-porn-lying-online-pornography-sexting-teenage
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tyssam5 on February 07, 2018, 06:23:38 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 06, 2018, 11:41:04 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 06, 2018, 07:24:13 AM
I'll repost this as I would be interested to hear what those who have already decided that Jackson is guilty think......

From what I've read it sounds like nothing was said when the girl came back to Jackson's room until the 3rd fella came in and she got up and said "how many times does a girl have to say no?". The girl said she went numb and was apparently frozen with fear which is understandable if her version is true but is it possible that Jackson could have interpreted it as consensual if he began kissing her and she didn't try to stop him or seem to him to be objecting in any way?


The evidence of the girl who walked into the room should be vital if she's a reliable witness, in determining whether the girl seemed to be a willing participant or not?

Every question you ask is victim blaming to some but I think it's logical and reasonable to ask why she could say no when there were 3 men there but was too scared to say no when it was just Jackson. She said no the first time she was in the room but not the second(unless she did and it wasn't reported). Why did she feel too scared to do so - was he physically aggressive to her at that stage? These are questions I'd like to hear answered before Id make up my mind if I was a juror. Maybe they were answered but not reported.


BUT as I said in another post, Jackson and the girl had consentually kissed in the bedroom, Paddy went to take it further and was rebuked by the girl who then went downstairs. She put on her shoes, about to leave, but realising she's left her bag in the bedroom went up to get it with Jackson following her and forcing herself upon her.

This is obviously her version of events, but Paddy may be caught out if the first part is true and she did knock him back and leave the room. What made Paddy think she'd changed her mind????

On the other hand Jackson takes no for an answer the first time and she leaves the room - so he could argue if he was intent on rape or not taking no for an answer why would he not have done it the first time?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 07, 2018, 07:56:20 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rois on February 07, 2018, 08:24:37 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 07, 2018, 07:56:20 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 09:12:07 AM
Quote from: Rois on February 07, 2018, 08:24:37 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 07, 2018, 07:56:20 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was, as Rois has said it would be uncomfortable and uneasy, and you'd leave..

The problem from her is convincing a jury (mainly males) that she didnt leave and according to her it was because she had to go upstairs to get a bag, then he came in, raped her, then another man came in and raped her also, while not making a noise, a cry for help, even not have any scratch marks on either person, plus the girl that came in also witnessed a sex act but no rape, I'm basing the last part on that fact that its the defence that has brought her in as a witness!

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 07, 2018, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: Rois on February 07, 2018, 08:24:37 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 07, 2018, 07:56:20 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Cant speak for all guys but personally if Im told no once then I leave it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 09:18:05 AM
Quote from: tonto1888 on February 07, 2018, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: Rois on February 07, 2018, 08:24:37 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 07, 2018, 07:56:20 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Cant speak for all guys but personally if Im told no once then I leave it

Unless its the wife!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 09:29:01 AM
Quote from: Rois on February 07, 2018, 08:24:37 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 07, 2018, 07:56:20 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Margaret Atwood's line: "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them." 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 07, 2018, 09:43:20 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 09:29:01 AM
Quote from: Rois on February 07, 2018, 08:24:37 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 07, 2018, 07:56:20 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Margaret Atwood's line: "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them."

Very true.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 07, 2018, 09:46:53 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 09:12:07 AM
Quote from: Rois on February 07, 2018, 08:24:37 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 07, 2018, 07:56:20 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was, as Rois has said it would be uncomfortable and uneasy, and you'd leave..

The problem from her is convincing a jury (mainly males) that she didnt leave and according to her it was because she had to go upstairs to get a bag, then he came in, raped her, then another man came in and raped her also, while not making a noise, a cry for help, even not have any scratch marks on either person, plus the girl that came in also witnessed a sex act but no rape, I'm basing the last part on that fact that its the defence that has brought her in as a witness!

Yeah, it's the alleged numbness that I can't understand. Because I've never been there. She never shouted nor screamed. She took off her own top and gave oral to Olding, but says both weren't consensual but she was too numb to object. But she did regain composure and walked out when Swinging Mick III came out and there was absolutely no question of any attempt to restrain her. 

It is understandable that rugby players can potentially be very intimidating if they have you in a compromising situation. But I would question if they knew what they were doing was even illegal. My view, at this stage, is they didn't really cop that, and that one scream would have ended it there and then. Not that ignorance or stupidity excuses wrongdoing.

There's been talk about all the adult content available on the internet. But its even "normal" TV that scenes like the above are on. From Entourage to Game of Thrones.  Or Ballers, where practically every episode has good looking girls looking to do all sorts with guys just because they're sportstars. Sure the lads even have their own international teammates who I'm sure have told stories in the lockerroom with a very similar tone to the text messages in the case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 10:37:28 AM
Quote from: tonto1888 on February 07, 2018, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: Rois on February 07, 2018, 08:24:37 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 07, 2018, 07:56:20 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Cant speak for all guys but personally if Im told no once then I leave it

Ah yeah. You're fûcking perfect
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on February 07, 2018, 10:46:53 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 07, 2018, 09:46:53 AM
There's been talk about all the adult content available on the internet

I have no comment on trial itself until we see how it pans out.

But I think that all of us should be tuned into above issue though.  We have a generation of kids growing up on hardcore stuff from the internet.  This isn't akin to anything I knew in my youth (skin mags and blue movies as they were referred to back then).  Also kids are seeing the porn first and gaining sexual experience after.   Expectation are being set by this stuff which both pressurising and confusing kids.

I spoke about this with some German colleagues at work.  I was asking about these "safe zones" in German cities for New Years.  I expected to hear about immigrants and culture clashes.  However they said that these "safe zones" are common now at rock concerts and beer festivals.  They said young German men expect the type of stuff we are hearing about in the current court case and lack an understanding about boundaries.

I don't think you can stop kids looking at this stuff but teenagers need to be educated about the difference between fantasy and reality.  I think it's important to have teenagers associate sex with intimacy and respect but maybe that's a battle that is already lost.

/Jim.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on February 07, 2018, 11:05:54 AM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on February 07, 2018, 10:46:53 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 07, 2018, 09:46:53 AM
There's been talk about all the adult content available on the internet

I have no comment on trial itself until we see how it pans out.

But I think that all of us should be tuned into above issue though.  We have a generation of kids growing up on hardcore stuff from the internet.  This isn't akin to anything I knew in my youth (skin mags and blue movies as they were referred to back then).  Also kids are seeing the porn first and gaining sexual experience after.   Expectation are being set by this stuff which both pressurising and confusing kids.

I spoke about this with some German colleagues at work.  I was asking about these "safe zones" in German cities for New Years.  I expected to hear about immigrants and culture clashes.  However they said that these "safe zones" are common now at rock concerts and beer festivals.  They said young German men expect the type of stuff we are hearing about in the current court case and lack an understanding about boundaries.

I don't think you can stop kids looking at this stuff but teenagers need to be educated about the difference between fantasy and reality.  I think it's important to have teenagers associate sex with intimacy and respect but maybe that's a battle that is already lost.

/Jim.

Good point but kids should be taught these things at home.
I think most young people know the difference between consent and rape
It's when intoxication enters the fray that lot of these boundaries get fuzzy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 07, 2018, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 09:12:07 AM
He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was

Her allegation is that she willingly kissed Jackson the first time in his room but he tried to take her pants off and she said no.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 07, 2018, 11:13:34 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 10:37:28 AM
Quote from: tonto1888 on February 07, 2018, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: Rois on February 07, 2018, 08:24:37 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 07, 2018, 07:56:20 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Cant speak for all guys but personally if Im told no once then I leave it

Ah yeah. You're fûcking perfect

far far from it mate
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 11:19:11 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 07, 2018, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 09:12:07 AM
He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was

Her allegation is that she willingly kissed Jackson the first time in his room but he tried to take her pants off and she said no.

And thats just what it is, an allegation surely? There are a lot of facts in this case, and there are a lot of allegations, finding the truth isnt easy...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 07, 2018, 11:38:00 AM
Quote from: Rois on February 07, 2018, 08:24:37 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 07, 2018, 07:56:20 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

Wouldn't be the way I would go personally but a statement like the above doesn't surprise me at all.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 11:56:58 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 11:19:11 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 07, 2018, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 09:12:07 AM
He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was

Her allegation is that she willingly kissed Jackson the first time in his room but he tried to take her pants off and she said no.

And thats just what it is, an allegation surely? There are a lot of facts in this case, and there are a lot of allegations, finding the truth isnt easy...
In England pants mean underwear. In the South  pants mean trousers.
What does pants mean in NI ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 12:00:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 11:56:58 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 11:19:11 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 07, 2018, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 09:12:07 AM
He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was

Her allegation is that she willingly kissed Jackson the first time in his room but he tried to take her pants off and she said no.

And thats just what it is, an allegation surely? There are a lot of facts in this case, and there are a lot of allegations, finding the truth isnt easy...
In England pants mean underwear. In the South  pants mean trousers.
What does pants mean in NI ?

Knickers I'd assume
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 07, 2018, 12:01:48 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 11:56:58 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 11:19:11 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 07, 2018, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 09:12:07 AM
He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was

Her allegation is that she willingly kissed Jackson the first time in his room but he tried to take her pants off and she said no.

And thats just what it is, an allegation surely? There are a lot of facts in this case, and there are a lot of allegations, finding the truth isnt easy...
In England pants mean underwear. In the South  pants mean trousers.
What does pants mean in NI ?
It generally means crap.  As in "Some of Seafoids posts are interesting, others are complete pants"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 12:02:28 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 12:10:14 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 12:02:28 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.

Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 07, 2018, 12:12:46 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 12:00:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 11:56:58 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 11:19:11 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 07, 2018, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 09:12:07 AM
He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was

Her allegation is that she willingly kissed Jackson the first time in his room but he tried to take her pants off and she said no.

And thats just what it is, an allegation surely? There are a lot of facts in this case, and there are a lot of allegations, finding the truth isnt easy...
In England pants mean underwear. In the South  pants mean trousers.
What does pants mean in NI ?

Knickers I'd assume

Nope;

From the Bel Tel;

"As I recall I left the room alone as soon as he started to undo my trousers."
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 12:14:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 12:00:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 11:56:58 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 11:19:11 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 07, 2018, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 09:12:07 AM
He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was

Her allegation is that she willingly kissed Jackson the first time in his room but he tried to take her pants off and she said no.

And thats just what it is, an allegation surely? There are a lot of facts in this case, and there are a lot of allegations, finding the truth isnt easy...
In England pants mean underwear. In the South  pants mean trousers.
What does pants mean in NI ?

Knickers I'd assume
And what do Shinners call trousers? Bríste ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 07, 2018, 12:25:27 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 07, 2018, 09:46:53 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 09:12:07 AM
Quote from: Rois on February 07, 2018, 08:24:37 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 07, 2018, 07:56:20 AM
Additionally, many a time a fella gets shot down but tries his luck again, uses a bit of chat and changes the situation.


Is this actually how guys think if a girl shoots you down? Ah sure give it another go, you can change her mind, she may say no at the start but doesn't really mean it, you can persuade her to have sex with you, and this happens "many a time". Not in my experience! Repeated propositions/attempts would make me incredibly uncomfortable and uneasy.

He wasnt shot down the first time, but the second time according to her he was, as Rois has said it would be uncomfortable and uneasy, and you'd leave..

The problem from her is convincing a jury (mainly males) that she didnt leave and according to her it was because she had to go upstairs to get a bag, then he came in, raped her, then another man came in and raped her also, while not making a noise, a cry for help, even not have any scratch marks on either person, plus the girl that came in also witnessed a sex act but no rape, I'm basing the last part on that fact that its the defence that has brought her in as a witness!

Yeah, it's the alleged numbness that I can't understand. Because I've never been there. She never shouted nor screamed. She took off her own top and gave oral to Olding, but says both weren't consensual but she was too numb to object. But she did regain composure and walked out when Swinging Mick III came out and there was absolutely no question of any attempt to restrain her. 

It is understandable that rugby players can potentially be very intimidating if they have you in a compromising situation. But I would question if they knew what they were doing was even illegal. My view, at this stage, is they didn't really cop that, and that one scream would have ended it there and then. Not that ignorance or stupidity excuses wrongdoing.

There's been talk about all the adult content available on the internet. But its even "normal" TV that scenes like the above are on. From Entourage to Game of Thrones.  Or Ballers, where practically every episode has good looking girls looking to do all sorts with guys just because they're sportstars. Sure the lads even have their own international teammates who I'm sure have told stories in the lockerroom with a very similar tone to the text messages in the case.

Where did you get this from?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 07, 2018, 12:35:12 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 12:10:14 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 12:02:28 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.

Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)
Presumption of innocence, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But the medical evidence and the third party evidence all still to come.

The weight that some people placed on the opening statement by the prosecution lawyer is mind blowing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 12:36:17 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 12:10:14 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 12:02:28 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.

Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)

What poster has come on and said they are definitely not guilty???
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 12:37:25 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 12:36:17 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 12:10:14 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 12:02:28 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.

Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)

What poster has come on and said they are definitely not guilty???

The same number as those who've said they're definitely guilty I'd guess. A very small number if any.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 07, 2018, 12:38:16 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 07, 2018, 12:35:12 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 12:10:14 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 12:02:28 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.

Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)
Presumption of innocence, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But the medical evidence and the third party evidence all still to come.

The weight that some people placed on the opening statement by the prosecution lawyer is mind blowing.

I work with a few ones here who had them hung by 1700 on day one.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 12:39:11 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 12:37:25 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 12:36:17 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 12:10:14 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 12:02:28 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.

Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)

What poster has come on and said they are definitely not guilty???

The same number as those who've said they're definitely guilty I'd guess.

Well go on and stick up a quote of someone saying they are definitely not guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 12:56:06 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 12:39:11 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 12:37:25 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 12:36:17 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 12:10:14 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 12:02:28 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.

Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)

What poster has come on and said they are definitely not guilty???

The same number as those who've said they're definitely guilty I'd guess.

Well go on and stick up a quote of someone saying they are definitely not guilty.

Yes my original post should have applied to those saying they are not guilty either.  However I don't think.I have read any poster say they are not guilty.  I have read posters saying they are guilty though.  Open to correction if you can find where someone has said they are not guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 01:07:19 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 12:56:06 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 12:39:11 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 12:37:25 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 12:36:17 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 12:10:14 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 12:02:28 PM
Very relevant for some of the posters on here who have decided they are guilty already.

The judge in a rape trial involving two Ulster rugby players has told the jury to ignore "fireside lawyers" expressing opinions on the case on the internet.

Judge Patricia Smyth said the views expressed were "ill-informed" and told the jury to ignore all publicity surrounding the case.

She told the jury to assess the case on "the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom and nothing else".

The 12-person jury has been told by Judge Patricia Smyth to wait until they hear all of the evidence in the case before coming to any final conclusions.

Doesn't apply to those who have decided they're not guilty already? No?  ::)

What poster has come on and said they are definitely not guilty???

The same number as those who've said they're definitely guilty I'd guess.

Well go on and stick up a quote of someone saying they are definitely not guilty.

Yes my original post should have applied to those saying they are not guilty either.  However I don't think.I have read any poster say they are not guilty.  I have read posters saying they are guilty though.  Open to correction if you can find where someone has said they are not guilty.

There were certainly more than a few posters pronouncing their certain guilt after day 1, and not only that but calling other posters, who suggested listening to all the evidence before deciding guilt or innocence might be the sensible thing to do, rape apologists, amongst other things.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 01:19:04 PM
The vast majority (I think everyone though I may have missed one or two when speed reading the thread) who mentioned guilt said something like "it looks like...." or "I think...." so relax. You're overegging it a little which is exactly what you're accusing others of.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 01:21:01 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

2h

Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding rape trial resumes with judge repeating her warning to the jurors to just try the case on the evidence they see and hear in court and to completely ignore media reports, the internet , social media and Syferus

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 07, 2018, 01:22:16 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 01:21:01 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

2h

Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding rape trial resumes with judge repeating her warning to the jurors to just try the case on the evidence they see and hear in court and to completely ignore media reports, the internet , social media and Syferus
;D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 01:37:02 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 01:19:04 PM
The vast majority (I think everyone though I may have missed one or two when speed reading the thread) who mentioned guilt said something like "it looks like...." or "I think...." so relax. You're overegging it a little which is exactly what you're accusing others of.

is there any posters who said not guilty? 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 07, 2018, 01:38:31 PM
What this rape trial has done is to shine a light on our own weaknesses - we want to judge on the flimsy evidence provided here.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 01:39:54 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 01:19:04 PM
The vast majority (I think everyone though I may have missed one or two when speed reading the thread) who mentioned guilt said something like "it looks like...." or "I think...." so relax. You're overegging it a little which is exactly what you're accusing others of.

Your hat Seanie, not only were many posters saying lock them up now they were labelling anyone who didn't agree as crusaders, victim blamers and rape apologists.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 07, 2018, 01:44:32 PM
That's youse told off - 'fireside lawyers'   :D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 01:46:30 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 01:39:54 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 01:19:04 PM
The vast majority (I think everyone though I may have missed one or two when speed reading the thread) who mentioned guilt said something like "it looks like...." or "I think...." so relax. You're overegging it a little which is exactly what you're accusing others of.

Your hat Seanie, not only were many posters saying lock them up now they were labelling anyone who didn't agree as crusaders, victim blamers and rape apologists.

If you don't think you can call out rape culture based on your opinion you've missed the point entirely.

This is not a court of law. You should do well to remember that next time you produce a pointless critique.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 01:55:05 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 01:39:54 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 01:19:04 PM
The vast majority (I think everyone though I may have missed one or two when speed reading the thread) who mentioned guilt said something like "it looks like...." or "I think...." so relax. You're overegging it a little which is exactly what you're accusing others of.

Your hat Seanie, not only were many posters saying lock them up now they were labelling anyone who didn't agree as crusaders, victim blamers and rape apologists.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. I'm open to correction though so go on a produce this big volume of posts that I must have forgotten or didn't read. Exaggeration is the new norm it seems.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 07, 2018, 01:59:32 PM
Seanie has Syferus on ignore.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 02:31:25 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 01:55:05 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 07, 2018, 01:39:54 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 01:19:04 PM
The vast majority (I think everyone though I may have missed one or two when speed reading the thread) who mentioned guilt said something like "it looks like...." or "I think...." so relax. You're overegging it a little which is exactly what you're accusing others of.

Your hat Seanie, not only were many posters saying lock them up now they were labelling anyone who didn't agree as crusaders, victim blamers and rape apologists.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. I'm open to correction though so go on a produce this big volume of posts that I must have forgotten or didn't read. Exaggeration is the new norm it seems.

A couple of posts ago you were asked to produce the posters who said they were not guilty and failed to do so. This discussion started on the rugby thread and there are quite a few posters on there who hung, drew and quartered the accused based on the prosecution's opening statement on day 1 of the trial. you will have no bother finding them if you want to have a look.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 02:39:26 PM
There's cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say "I don't really believe the rape victim". So they think they're doing a good job obfuscating what's in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after 'stars' or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they're approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 07, 2018, 03:03:07 PM
Syfarus, are you at Laganside court? Or Roscommon somewhere?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 03:05:13 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 02:39:26 PM
There's cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say "I don't really believe the rape victim". So they think they're doing a good job obfuscating what's in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after 'stars' or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they're approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

Now you know what is someone else's heart - you really are the almighty one
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on February 07, 2018, 03:05:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 02:39:26 PM
There's cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say "I don't really believe the rape victim". So they think they're doing a good job obfuscating what's in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after 'stars' or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they're approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

How does one preach to a cave. Your bad grammar on this post combined with an unprecedented condecent approach detracts the reader away from the subject matter. A bit less pretence and a bit more tone and context that befits the general users normal reading standard might achieve more empathy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 03:06:09 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 07, 2018, 03:03:07 PM
Syfarus, are you at Laganside court? Or Roscommon somewhere?

He may have been in the room on the night in question he knows so much about the case
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on February 07, 2018, 03:11:54 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 03:06:09 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 07, 2018, 03:03:07 PM
Syfarus, are you at Laganside court? Or Roscommon somewhere?

He may have been in the room on the night in question he knows so much about the case

All I derived from his post was he's a bit of a smart ass. His geographical location or knowledge of the subject wouldn't have a bearing on his rants
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 03:15:37 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on February 07, 2018, 03:05:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 02:39:26 PM
There's cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say "I don't really believe the rape victim". So they think they're doing a good job obfuscating what's in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after 'stars' or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they're approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

How does one preach to a cave. Your bad grammar on this post combined with an unprecedented condecent approach detracts the reader away from the subject matter. A bit less pretence and a bit more tone and context that befits the general users normal reading standard might achieve more empathy.

You seem to assume I have any intention or desire to look for empathy from the sorts of people I was commenting on there. Weird.

You either get the parameters that define rape culture or you don't and try to pretend this is a normal court case. You can't make someone see who doesn't want to see.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 03:16:59 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on February 07, 2018, 03:11:54 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 03:06:09 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 07, 2018, 03:03:07 PM
Syfarus, are you at Laganside court? Or Roscommon somewhere?

He may have been in the room on the night in question he knows so much about the case

All I derived from his post was he's a bit of a smart ass. His geographical location or knowledge of the subject wouldn't have a bearing on his rants

read some of his other posts on it from the rugby thread.  Continually labels people who want to wait until the end of the trial before they make up their mind as caveman.  Most of the time challenged on a valid point deflects and or doesn't refer back to it.   as narcisstic as an individual as you could ever interact with.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on February 07, 2018, 03:36:02 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 03:16:59 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on February 07, 2018, 03:11:54 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 07, 2018, 03:06:09 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 07, 2018, 03:03:07 PM
Syfarus, are you at Laganside court? Or Roscommon somewhere?

He may have been in the room on the night in question he knows so much about the case

All I derived from his post was he's a bit of a smart ass. His geographical location or knowledge of the subject wouldn't have a bearing on his rants

read some of his other posts on it from the rugby thread.  Continually labels people who want to wait until the end of the trial before they make up their mind as caveman.  Most of the time challenged on a valid point deflects and or doesn't refer back to it.   as narcisstic as an individual as you could ever interact with.

Gonna switch to my own words here.
You got that dude Sussed Frank
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 07, 2018, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 02:39:26 PM
There's cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say "I don't really believe the rape victim". So they think they're doing a good job obfuscating what's in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after 'stars' or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they're approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

You also forgot to mention that she took her top off then gave the second guy a blowjob, before seeing the third guy and deciding enough is enough.

Before people jump down my throat note that I am only describing the defence case, not my own view.

At the end of the day, there will be no winners in this court case except the lawyers.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: fearbrags on February 07, 2018, 03:51:29 PM
"""Most of the time challenged on a valid point deflects and or doesn't refer back to it.   as narcisstic as an individual as you could ever interact with"""
That Sounds Like Donald Trump  ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 03:57:18 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 07, 2018, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 02:39:26 PM
There's cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say "I don't really believe the rape victim". So they think they're doing a good job obfuscating what's in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after 'stars' or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they're approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

You also forgot to mention that she took her top off then gave the second guy a blowjob, before seeing the third guy and deciding enough is enough.

Before people jump down my throat note that I am only describing the defence case, not my own view.

At the end of the day, there will be no winners in this court case except the lawyers.

If the victim prevails she will have shown an incredible amount of bravery and struck a massive blow against those who think they are above being prosecuted for sexual assault. After what happened to her that would be very much a win.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 07, 2018, 04:07:37 PM
And what will happen if the players prevail?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 04:16:22 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 07, 2018, 04:07:37 PM
And what will happen if the players prevail?

Justice will again have not been served in a rape trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: fearbrags on February 07, 2018, 04:22:39 PM

""Justice will again have not been served in a rape trial.""

Why have a trail at all ?? Just Get Judge Syferus to read a few newspapers  and Give his verdict ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 07, 2018, 04:31:32 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 07, 2018, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 02:39:26 PM
There's cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say "I don't really believe the rape victim". So they think they're doing a good job obfuscating what's in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after 'stars' or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they're approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

You also forgot to mention that she took her top off then gave the second guy a blowjob, before seeing the third guy and deciding enough is enough.

Before people jump down my throat note that I am only describing the defence case, not my own view.

At the end of the day, there will be no winners in this court case except the lawyers.

Where is this being reported?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: red hander on February 07, 2018, 04:58:33 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 07, 2018, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 02:39:26 PM
There's cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say "I don't really believe the rape victim". So they think they're doing a good job obfuscating what's in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after 'stars' or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they're approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

You also forgot to mention that she took her top off then gave the second guy a blowjob, before seeing the third guy and deciding enough is enough.

Before people jump down my throat note that I am only describing the defence case, not my own view.

At the end of the day, there will be no winners in this court case except the lawyers.

Bit Freudian considering the circumstances...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 05:04:41 PM
Quote from: fearbrags on February 07, 2018, 04:22:39 PM

""Justice will again have not been served in a rape trial.""

Why have a trail at all ?? Just Get Judge Syferus to read a few newspapers  and Give his verdict ;)
+1 a much fairer system, though he'd hate having that level of moral authority over everyone.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 06:02:05 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on February 07, 2018, 06:24:19 PM
Or he's saving that question for the accused as their version of the answer will look better...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 06:26:22 PM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on February 07, 2018, 06:24:19 PM
Or he's saving that question for the accused as their version of the answer will look better...

That's literally another way of saying the same thing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 06:59:03 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

When asked by Stuart Olding's barrister why she didn't say "help, I'm being raped and I'm going to be raped again" when he walked into the room while Paddy Jackson was forcibly pulling her towards him, she said: "this man was not there to help me. He was also there to rape me"

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 07:51:46 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 06:59:03 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

When asked by Stuart Olding's barrister why she didn't say "help, I'm being raped and I'm going to be raped again" when he walked into the room while Paddy Jackson was forcibly pulling her towards him, she said: "this man was not there to help me. He was also there to rape me"

I suppose then she'd have said same thing when the other girl walked in?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 07:54:39 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 06:59:03 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

When asked by Stuart Olding's barrister why she didn't say "help, I'm being raped and I'm going to be raped again" when he walked into the room while Paddy Jackson was forcibly pulling her towards him, she said: "this man was not there to help me. He was also there to rape me"

Sounds like the woman is making a holy show of the defence case. Good to see.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:14:29 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 06:02:05 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events after they've taken the stand?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 08:22:38 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:14:29 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 06:02:05 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events after they've taken the stand?
If the accused relate a different version of events the prosecution will have the opportunity to cross examine them. Then of course the defence counsel may not put the accused into the witness box at all as is their right.  Then it is a case of the jury  believing the girl enough to give a beyond reasonable
doubt verdict of guilty, acquitting or failing to agree.
I don't think her evidence is beyond doubt from reading the reports so far.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 08:29:33 PM
Can it ever be totally beyond doubt.  At the end of the day it's one persons word versus another's.  A rape trial must be horrific for the victim of rape.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:31:21 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 08:22:38 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:14:29 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 06:02:05 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events after they've taken the stand?
If the accused relate a different version of events the prosecution will have the opportunity to cross examine them. Then of course the defence counsel may not put the accused into the witness box at all as is their right.  Then it is a case of the jury  believing the girl enough to give a beyond reasonable
doubt verdict of guilty, acquitting or failing to agree.
I don't think her evidence is beyond doubt from reading the reports so far.

Sooo.... Is that a No?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 07, 2018, 08:39:48 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 07:54:39 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 06:59:03 PM


Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

When asked by Stuart Olding's barrister why she didn't say "help, I'm being raped and I'm going to be raped again" when he walked into the room while Paddy Jackson was forcibly pulling her towards him, she said: "this man was not there to help me. He was also there to rape me"

Sounds like the woman is making a holy show of the defence case. Good to see.

She's been very good with her responses, smart girl, medical degree I heard (could be bullshit! ) . has remembered a serious amount of stuff for admitting being very hazy with the amount of booze taken. Not
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 07, 2018, 09:19:28 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.
Very interesting  that you offer a critique on the quality of the cross examination after she came back into the room ::)

Afaiu the defense team do realise the essence of courtroom strategy in a defense against  charges of rape and are desperately trying to establish that consent was given to one and all in that room. The whole focus so far on events after  she came into the room  is about consent.
You tell us, what is more important for the defense team than to first establish a level of acceptable consent from the morsels of the evidence? Isn't consent 99% of the case?
In a nutshell, rape is sex without consent and also you can only give consent if you know (within reason) what is about to transpire.
So far the woman is a compelling witness.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 07, 2018, 09:31:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 08:29:33 PM
Can it ever be totally beyond doubt.  At the end of the day it's one persons word versus another's.  A rape trial must be horrific for the victim of rape.

Hence the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. It can never be total. It's what is deemed reasonable
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LeoMc on February 07, 2018, 09:39:06 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.
Even the defence request / instruction for Rory Best to attend Court was poorly thought through. Here we have a girl who stated she had been afraid to come forward initially because she would be up against all of Ulster Rigby. Then the defence instruct the players to attend court, making her fear look justified.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 09:41:15 PM
They thought it it would play to the jury that Irish rugby was behind the rapists but it totally backfired.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 09:53:18 PM
It will be interesting to see if Jackson and Olding do testify. Is it not unusual in criminal trials for the accused to take the stand (genuinely don't know but seem to remember hearing in murder cases it's seen as a kind of desperate measure)?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 10:21:10 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:31:21 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 08:22:38 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:14:29 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 06:02:05 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events after they've taken the stand?
If the accused relate a different version of events the prosecution will have the opportunity to cross examine them. Then of course the defence counsel may not put the accused into the witness box at all as is their right.  Then it is a case of the jury  believing the girl enough to give a beyond reasonable
doubt verdict of guilty, acquitting or failing to agree.
I don't think her evidence is beyond doubt from reading the reports so far.

Sooo.... Is that a No?
If a new version of events is raised it will be during her cross examination. Prosecution will be able to examine her to dispute this new version.
It's a No
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 10:23:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 07, 2018, 09:31:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 08:29:33 PM
Can it ever be totally beyond doubt.  At the end of the day it's one persons word versus another's.  A rape trial must be horrific for the victim of rape.

Hence the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. It can never be total. It's what is deemed reasonable
Beyond reasonable doubt not beyond all reasonable doubt. There is a big difference.
If the jury has a doubt about any particular piece of evidence the accused must get the benefit of that doubt
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 10:25:15 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2018, 09:53:18 PM
It will be interesting to see if Jackson and Olding do testify. Is it not unusual in criminal trials for the accused to take the stand (genuinely don't know but seem to remember hearing in murder cases it's seen as a kind of desperate measure)?
It can be a gamble depending on the weight of evidence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 07, 2018, 10:43:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 04:16:22 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 07, 2018, 04:07:37 PM
And what will happen if the players prevail?

Justice will again have not been served in a rape trial.

Anyone who comes out with a statement like this without having even heard one side of the story is clearly a buffoon whose mindset would put him in a similar bracket to Tony Fearon and the local paedo hunting brigade. All opinions emanating from said buffoon should be given due credence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 11:34:12 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 10:21:10 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:31:21 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 07, 2018, 08:22:38 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on February 07, 2018, 08:14:29 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 06:02:05 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 07, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
I think the lady has done a good job. Some of the defence lawyer conjectures were very shaky.
The rugby players have a harder job. They need to be coherent and consistent between each other. The prosecution probably have better lines of attack than "you were drunk and up for it, weren't you ?"
I think the defence lawyer has been terrible. Some of his questions have been insulting and irrelevant and he's failed to ask some obvious questions regarding the exact details of what happened when she came back into the room.

There's a maxim in criminal law that you don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to. Maybe he does know the answer, and that's exactly why he didn't ask the question.
Could be that too now that you say it.

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events after they've taken the stand?
If the accused relate a different version of events the prosecution will have the opportunity to cross examine them. Then of course the defence counsel may not put the accused into the witness box at all as is their right.  Then it is a case of the jury  believing the girl enough to give a beyond reasonable
doubt verdict of guilty, acquitting or failing to agree.
I don't think her evidence is beyond doubt from reading the reports so far.

Sooo.... Is that a No?
If a new version of events is raised it will be during her cross examination. Prosecution will be able to examine her to dispute this new version.
It's a No

Sorry my bad

I'll rephrase...

Does the complainant get a chance to refute a new version of events introduced by subsequent witnesses that arises after they have finished their testimony?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:28:12 AM
In the opening statement by the prosecution QC, it is stated that the complainant alleges vaginal sex occurred while Jackson maintains it did not.

Is DNA evidence likely to be introduced by the prosecution, I wonder?

I'm still struggling to see any inconsistencies in the complainant's story as reported by media.

Olding's claim that he merely went to "crash out" in Jackson's bedroom seems very unconvincing to me.

Interesting also that some evidence has apparently not been reported on by the media because it is so graphic - at least according to the Belfast Telegraph's summing up of the first week of the trial.


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:33:51 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 07, 2018, 09:31:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 08:29:33 PM
Can it ever be totally beyond doubt.  At the end of the day it's one persons word versus another's.  A rape trial must be horrific for the victim of rape.

Hence the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. It can never be total. It's what is deemed reasonable
I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is: was it beyond reasonable doubt that Jackson and Olding were reckless as to whether they believed they had consent?

Believing you had consent does not equal not guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: stew on February 08, 2018, 02:00:40 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:33:51 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 07, 2018, 09:31:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 07, 2018, 08:29:33 PM
Can it ever be totally beyond doubt.  At the end of the day it's one persons word versus another's.  A rape trial must be horrific for the victim of rape.

Hence the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. It can never be total. It's what is deemed reasonable
I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is: was it beyond reasonable doubt that Jackson and Olding were reckless as to whether they believed they had consent?

Believing you had consent does not equal not guilty.

Sid what the f**k would you know about the burden of proof? funny, I dont remember the burden of proof being mentioned on a thread were you gleefully threw the entire presidential staff under the bus for two ex wives claiming their ex husband, a staffer, abused them physically.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 08:32:09 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 03:57:18 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 07, 2018, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 02:39:26 PM
There's cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say "I don't really believe the rape victim". So they think they're doing a good job obfuscating what's in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after 'stars' or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they're approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

You also forgot to mention that she took her top off then gave the second guy a blowjob, before seeing the third guy and deciding enough is enough.

Before people jump down my throat note that I am only describing the defence case, not my own view.

At the end of the day, there will be no winners in this court case except the lawyers.

If the victim prevails she will have shown an incredible amount of bravery and struck a massive blow against those who think they are above being prosecuted for sexual assault. After what happened to her that would be very much a win.

You and others are playing with fire here. I saw that one group is sending her 3 roses every day for the duration of the trial. It got them a lot of likes and retweets.

If these players are found not to have raped this girl, then she is going to be in a very bad place mentally. She is under a lot of pressure, and that has been increased a hundred fold by the likes of you holding this case up as some sort of moral battle. As far as I'm aware, this girl didn't nominate herself to be a champion of any of the various degrees of movements which have waded in behind her - it seems to me most people championing her are using her as much as Jackson and Olding did.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 08, 2018, 09:19:31 AM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 08:32:09 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 03:57:18 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 07, 2018, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 07, 2018, 02:39:26 PM
There's cavemen in this thread who are aware how toxic an issue this is so they know enough not to say "I don't really believe the rape victim". So they think they're doing a good job obfuscating what's in their hearts by raising questions about the victim dressing scantily, her chasing after 'stars' or simply looking for attention as if it fools anyone into believing they're approaching the issue without a callous bias against the victim. Preaching to the cave.

You also forgot to mention that she took her top off then gave the second guy a blowjob, before seeing the third guy and deciding enough is enough.

Before people jump down my throat note that I am only describing the defence case, not my own view.

At the end of the day, there will be no winners in this court case except the lawyers.

If the victim prevails she will have shown an incredible amount of bravery and struck a massive blow against those who think they are above being prosecuted for sexual assault. After what happened to her that would be very much a win.

You and others are playing with fire here. I saw that one group is sending her 3 roses every day for the duration of the trial. It got them a lot of likes and retweets.

If these players are found not to have raped this girl, then she is going to be in a very bad place mentally. She is under a lot of pressure, and that has been increased a hundred fold by the likes of you holding this case up as some sort of moral battle. As far as I'm aware, this girl didn't nominate herself to be a champion of any of the various degrees of movements which have waded in behind her - it seems to me most people championing her are using her as much as Jackson and Olding did.

At this stage she is only an alleged victim.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: mackers on February 08, 2018, 09:58:00 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:28:12 AM
Interesting also that some evidence has apparently not been reported on by the media because it is so graphic - at least according to the Belfast Telegraph's summing up of the first week of the trial.
I was listening to Matt Cooper yesterday evening and the guy reporting on it was fairly graphic.  You could nearly here Cooper shifting about in the seat.  It left it very clear in my head the exact position everybody had when these acts were being carried out.  I was glad none of the children were in the car with me.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on February 08, 2018, 10:10:49 AM
Quote from: mackers on February 08, 2018, 09:58:00 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:28:12 AM
Interesting also that some evidence has apparently not been reported on by the media because it is so graphic - at least according to the Belfast Telegraph's summing up of the first week of the trial.
I was listening to Matt Cooper yesterday evening and the guy reporting on it was fairly graphic.  You could nearly here Cooper shifting about in the seat.  It left it very clear in my head the exact position everybody had when these acts were being carried out.  I was glad none of the children were in the car with me.
I assume the defendants and the alleged victim's version of events will differ, so which one are you very clear on?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: mackers on February 08, 2018, 10:13:59 AM
The one that the reporter spoke about......OK "alleged" positions.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on February 08, 2018, 10:28:29 AM
Quote from: mackers on February 08, 2018, 10:13:59 AM
The one that the reporter spoke about......OK "alleged" positions.
Sorry, I thought you were taking for granted that one version of events as being fact.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 08, 2018, 11:06:21 AM
Quote from: mackers on February 08, 2018, 09:58:00 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:28:12 AM
Interesting also that some evidence has apparently not been reported on by the media because it is so graphic - at least according to the Belfast Telegraph's summing up of the first week of the trial.
I was listening to Matt Cooper yesterday evening and the guy reporting on it was fairly graphic.  You could nearly here Cooper shifting about in the seat.  It left it very clear in my head the exact position everybody had when these acts were being carried out.  I was glad none of the children were in the car with me.

What do you mean by interesting?? Surely that would be par for the course? Do you think there is an agenda at work for some reason?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 11:24:47 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 08, 2018, 11:06:21 AM
Quote from: mackers on February 08, 2018, 09:58:00 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:28:12 AM
Interesting also that some evidence has apparently not been reported on by the media because it is so graphic - at least according to the Belfast Telegraph's summing up of the first week of the trial.
I was listening to Matt Cooper yesterday evening and the guy reporting on it was fairly graphic.  You could nearly here Cooper shifting about in the seat.  It left it very clear in my head the exact position everybody had when these acts were being carried out.  I was glad none of the children were in the car with me.

What do you mean by interesting?? Surely that would be par for the course? Do you think there is an agenda at work for some reason?

I hope Rory is getting detailed transcripts or has a live video link to help him with both sides of the story.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 11:43:20 AM
I'm not sure how anyone could be certain on this case.

It seems the lads are at the least guilty of being dickheads and that automatically makes people like Syf there assume they did it.

A lot of people I've spoken to about it seems to be siding with the lads. Her text messages seem very contrived, I'd love to hear the opinion of a psychologist which explains how those texts fit in with the behavior of others in the same situation
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 08, 2018, 11:51:57 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 11:43:20 AM
I'm not sure how anyone could be certain on this case.

It seems the lads are at the least guilty of being d**kheads and that automatically makes people like Syf there assume they did it.

A lot of people I've spoken to about it seems to be siding with the lads. Her text messages seem very contrived, I'd love to hear the opinion of a psychologist which explains how those texts fit in with the behavior of others in the same situation
The sequence of events in the immediate aftermath of the alleged attacks would suggest to me that if she *is* lying, she has went to extraordinary lengths to take three men to court on the back of it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 11:54:53 AM
I agree with that - they behaved atrociously, but that doesn't mean they raped her. There are an awful lot of holes and inconsistencies in her story.

Also, said in those texts she was raped by 3 men, didn't she?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 12:01:49 PM
In fairness she said "two and a third guy tried to get involved"

Her texts just seemed very calm, I'd like to see if thats normal. I'd presume rape victims follow relatively similar patterns and again I'd assume either you clam up and say nothing or you're hysterical.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 12:02:54 PM
Ya. It's a well known fact that everyone reacts the same.  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:03:51 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 08, 2018, 11:51:57 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 11:43:20 AM
I'm not sure how anyone could be certain on this case.

It seems the lads are at the least guilty of being d**kheads and that automatically makes people like Syf there assume they did it.

A lot of people I've spoken to about it seems to be siding with the lads. Her text messages seem very contrived, I'd love to hear the opinion of a psychologist which explains how those texts fit in with the behavior of others in the same situation
The sequence of events in the immediate aftermath of the alleged attacks would suggest to me that if she *is* lying, she has went to extraordinary lengths to take three men to court on the back of it.

What do you mean?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:04:01 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 11:54:53 AM
I agree with that - they behaved atrociously, but that doesn't mean they raped her. There are an awful lot of holes and inconsistencies in her story.

Also, said in those texts she was raped by 3 men, didn't she?
Such as?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 08, 2018, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:04:01 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 11:54:53 AM
I agree with that - they behaved atrociously, but that doesn't mean they raped her. There are an awful lot of holes and inconsistencies in her story.

Also, said in those texts she was raped by 3 men, didn't she?
Such as?

Said she only puts tan on if shes expecting sex? so she had no tan on but there was tan all over the clothes she was wearing.

those rugby lads must have been tanning themselves!! I think that was the jist of what was reported
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:06:33 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 12:01:49 PM
In fairness she said "two and a third guy tried to get involved"

Her texts just seemed very calm, I'd like to see if thats normal. I'd presume rape victims follow relatively similar patterns and again I'd assume either you clam up and say nothing or you're hysterical.

No, she said 'just got raped by three f**king ulster rugby scum' in the ones i saw. Maybe elaborated in further messages, but that was one of them.

''In a text message to a friend the following day, the woman said she had been "raped by three Ulster f*****g rugby scum."''
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/there-spit-roasting-going-on-11941837
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 12:08:31 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 12:02:54 PM
Ya. It's a well known fact that everyone reacts the same.  ::)

Broadly speaking they do. Thats why you have things like the five stages of grief, theres actually a name for it - Rape Trauma Syndrome.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 08, 2018, 12:11:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 08, 2018, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:04:01 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 11:54:53 AM
I agree with that - they behaved atrociously, but that doesn't mean they raped her. There are an awful lot of holes and inconsistencies in her story.

Also, said in those texts she was raped by 3 men, didn't she?
Such as?

Said she only puts tan on if shes expecting sex? so she had no tan on but there was tan all over the clothes she was wearing.

those rugby lads must have been tanning themselves!! I think that was the jist of what was reported

That's not correct MR2 she said she had no tan on her legs and hadn't shaven. She was wearing a top that was showing her belly and so only tanned whatever was uncovered.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 08, 2018, 12:13:17 PM
Fireside lawyers said the judge  :D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 08, 2018, 12:20:23 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:06:33 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 12:01:49 PM
In fairness she said "two and a third guy tried to get involved"

Her texts just seemed very calm, I'd like to see if thats normal. I'd presume rape victims follow relatively similar patterns and again I'd assume either you clam up and say nothing or you're hysterical.

No, she said 'just got raped by three f**king ulster rugby scum' in the ones i saw. Maybe elaborated in further messages, but that was one of them.

''In a text message to a friend the following day, the woman said she had been "raped by three Ulster f*****g rugby scum."''
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/there-spit-roasting-going-on-11941837

That was her text, the day after the event. Her story to the police, the basis of the charge, was that the third lad, McIlroy came into the room with his dick out.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 08, 2018, 12:20:45 PM
I said that was the jist of what i got, I didnt say legs, upper body neck arms, probably a bit on her feet that was showing...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 08, 2018, 12:21:41 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 08, 2018, 12:13:17 PM
Fireside lawyers said the judge  :D

Exactly. While this is the most high profile and 'juicy' part of the case....woman giving evidence and being dissected by defence counsel...it's possibly not even the most crucial. I'm not saying it isn't but in a case of he said she said the circumstantial evidence is normally the key. Medical evidence, 3rd party statements, forensics etc. Both sides will play on the weaker sides of the others 'emotional' evidence and build up the strong parts of their own. If Jackson et al get into the box it could be very very telling. I would presume that in the police station they pushed the whole idea of consent in the interviews. We only know the potiential holes in the complainants case. There may be a raft of holes in their stories and even if they have been coached together as witnesses lies beget lies and ignorant they are not telling the truth they are not as smart as the man asking them the questions and they can be very easily caught out. This is far from clear cut and the whole question of when does the 'no consent' kick in will be the key. As soon as she says no anything thereafter is a crime
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:23:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 12:04:01 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 11:54:53 AM
I agree with that - they behaved atrociously, but that doesn't mean they raped her. There are an awful lot of holes and inconsistencies in her story.

Also, said in those texts she was raped by 3 men, didn't she?
Such as?

The positions she talks about being in, face down, forced down on bed, but looked PJ in the eyes to say 'no, not him as well'. 'Froze' initially so didn't react, but then would appear to have been compliant in moving about going by how the story continues. Could obviously still be raped, compliance makes sense if under threat, but does there appear to have been the real threat or fear of violence there? If so, had it disappeared when she 'finally found her fight' and told the third she wasn't having sex with him? Which he accepted, but she did't feel that the others would have accepted that to that point? Girl enters room, she turns head away rather than plea for help or demonstrate it was unwilling. How she talks about the sex occurring now doesn't tally at all with her statement to the rowan crisis centre, and differs in quite major specific detail. Her statement in court to explain the various discrepancies was 'I think you are underestimating the state of shock you go into when you've been raped." If shock makes you not just forget details but actually invent contradictory details I'm not sure how anyone could ever be convicted of anything.

Also said that she hadn't liked the third (mcilroy) from the start of the night, seems to me that most likely story was consensual with paddy, and with Olding,but reservations as perhaps realised she was being used, then lost it when mcilroy tried to join in, regretted whole incident, which was exacerbated by McIlroy and perhaps the others giving her abuse, which put her into hysterics, and in retrospect believed a crime had been committed.

So there you go, guess I'm a rape apologist  ::)



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:24:53 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 08, 2018, 12:20:23 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:06:33 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 12:01:49 PM
In fairness she said "two and a third guy tried to get involved"

Her texts just seemed very calm, I'd like to see if thats normal. I'd presume rape victims follow relatively similar patterns and again I'd assume either you clam up and say nothing or you're hysterical.

No, she said 'just got raped by three f**king ulster rugby scum' in the ones i saw. Maybe elaborated in further messages, but that was one of them.

''In a text message to a friend the following day, the woman said she had been "raped by three Ulster f*****g rugby scum."''
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/there-spit-roasting-going-on-11941837

That was her text, the day after the event. Her story to the police, the basis of the charge, was that the third lad, McIlroy came into the room with his dick out.

Yes - this was about the texts, not her statements. It was the text I referred to initially which I thought M4S was correcting
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 08, 2018, 12:27:47 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 08, 2018, 12:21:41 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 08, 2018, 12:13:17 PM
Fireside lawyers said the judge  :D

Exactly. While this is the most high profile and 'juicy' part of the case....woman giving evidence and being dissected by defence counsel...it's possibly not even the most crucial. I'm not saying it isn't but in a case of he said she said the circumstantial evidence is normally the key. Medical evidence, 3rd party statements, forensics etc. Both sides will play on the weaker sides of the others 'emotional' evidence and build up the strong parts of their own. If Jackson et al get into the box it could be very very telling. I would presume that in the police station they pushed the whole idea of consent in the interviews. We only know the potiential holes in the complainants case. There may be a raft of holes in their stories and even if they have been coached together as witnesses lies beget lies and ignorant they are not telling the truth they are not as smart as the man asking them the questions and they can be very easily caught out. This is far from clear cut and the whole question of when does the 'no consent' kick in will be the key. As soon as she says no anything thereafter is a crime

It dosent look good for them, and I asked the question to my brother in law, who is a lawyer, from what he has seen so far and in his experience, he thinks the lads will get off!

I'm not conviced, but hey what would i know, being a fireside lawyer
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 08, 2018, 12:31:23 PM
What is obvious is rape victims (not saying her or not as I dont know) are put through hell in court.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:35:17 PM
As are all victims, and indeed innocent defendants.

They should really look at keeping these cases behind closed doors. Whatever the outcome, the likelihood is all their lives have been ruined
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 08, 2018, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 08, 2018, 12:31:23 PM
What is obvious is rape victims (not saying her or not as I dont know) are put through hell in court.

Horrific by the sounds of it, takes a lot of support from family and the help centre's and of course the police
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on February 08, 2018, 12:55:39 PM
Did the lawyer for Olding tell the court yesterday that his client's version of events is that he entered the room and the alleged victime was straddling Jackon and beckoning him (Olding) to join them?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 08, 2018, 01:00:55 PM
I've spoken to several fireside lawyers and a couple of actual lawyers.  The consensus is that it's 50:50 at the moment and the evidence of the other girl (who is slated to appear for the defence) will be crucial and how this evidence comes over will determine whether the defendants go in the witness box.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 08, 2018, 01:07:43 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:35:17 PM
As are all victims, and indeed innocent defendants.

They should really look at keeping these cases behind closed doors. Whatever the outcome, the likelihood is all their lives have been ruined

But then, some people of both gender, need a reminder of the possible consequences of their actions during a night out.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on February 08, 2018, 01:14:02 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:35:17 PM
As are all victims, and indeed innocent defendants.

They should really look at keeping these cases behind closed doors. Whatever the outcome, the likelihood is all their lives have been ruined

Not true. Not all victims are cross examined. If someone walked up behind you on the street and kicked the crap out of you its unlikely you would get interrogated to try and imply you were getting a consensual kicking. Rape Victims almost always are interrogated and it puts quite a lot of them off going to court in the first place.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 08, 2018, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 08, 2018, 01:00:55 PM
I've spoken to several fireside lawyers and a couple of actual lawyers.  The consensus is that it's 50:50 at the moment and the evidence of the other girl (who is slated to appear for the defence) will be crucial and how this evidence comes over will determine whether the defendants go in the witness box.

The testimony of that lady will be vital to the whole case, if she says it didn't look consensual or vice versa then it'll be very hard to prove what happened - i.e. reasonable doubt in legal terms. However everyone who was in that house bar the lady in question has yet to speak. So much more to come. I think Rory Harrison (who fella who left the girl home) will also be critical - the lady in question has gone on record to say he was civil to her, what he says about the events leading up to it all will have a massive bearing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 01:46:50 PM
Quote from: Itchy on February 08, 2018, 01:14:02 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:35:17 PM
As are all victims, and indeed innocent defendants.

They should really look at keeping these cases behind closed doors. Whatever the outcome, the likelihood is all their lives have been ruined

Not true. Not all victims are cross examined. If someone walked up behind you on the street and kicked the crap out of you its unlikely you would get interrogated to try and imply you were getting a consensual kicking. Rape Victims almost always are interrogated and it puts quite a lot of them off going to court in the first place.

That's true I definitely exaggerated there. But I guess the point was there are many cases that could be said for, its not exclusive to rape cases.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 08, 2018, 01:46:58 PM
Quote from: Itchy on February 08, 2018, 01:14:02 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 12:35:17 PM
As are all victims, and indeed innocent defendants.

They should really look at keeping these cases behind closed doors. Whatever the outcome, the likelihood is all their lives have been ruined

Not true. Not all victims are cross examined. If someone walked up behind you on the street and kicked the crap out of you its unlikely you would get interrogated to try and imply you were getting a consensual kicking. Rape Victims almost always are interrogated and it puts quite a lot of them off going to court in the first place.
Are you saying that they shouldnt be cross examined and their allegation accepted as fact?
That would really suit the "All men are bastards" crew
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 08, 2018, 01:48:06 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 08, 2018, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 08, 2018, 01:00:55 PM
I've spoken to several fireside lawyers and a couple of actual lawyers.  The consensus is that it's 50:50 at the moment and the evidence of the other girl (who is slated to appear for the defence) will be crucial and how this evidence comes over will determine whether the defendants go in the witness box.

The testimony of that lady will be vital to the whole case, if she says it didn't look consensual or vice versa then it'll be very hard to prove what happened - i.e. reasonable doubt in legal terms. However everyone who was in that house bar the lady in question has yet to speak. So much more to come. I think Rory Harrison (who fella who left the girl home) will also be critical - the lady in question has gone on record to say he was civil to her, what he says about the events leading up to it all will have a massive bearing.

He's already said she was in hysterics in the whatsapp group messaging, so if she is crying wolf she did it pretty quickly after the event.....
It will be interesting both his, the Taxi drivers and those downstairs when she did leave as to her demeanour when doing so.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 08, 2018, 01:53:23 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 08, 2018, 01:48:06 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 08, 2018, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 08, 2018, 01:00:55 PM
I've spoken to several fireside lawyers and a couple of actual lawyers.  The consensus is that it's 50:50 at the moment and the evidence of the other girl (who is slated to appear for the defence) will be crucial and how this evidence comes over will determine whether the defendants go in the witness box.

The testimony of that lady will be vital to the whole case, if she says it didn't look consensual or vice versa then it'll be very hard to prove what happened - i.e. reasonable doubt in legal terms. However everyone who was in that house bar the lady in question has yet to speak. So much more to come. I think Rory Harrison (who fella who left the girl home) will also be critical - the lady in question has gone on record to say he was civil to her, what he says about the events leading up to it all will have a massive bearing.

He's already said she was in hysterics in the whatsapp group messaging, so if she is crying wolf she did it pretty quickly after the event.....
It will be interesting both his, the Taxi drivers and those downstairs when she did leave as to her demeanour when doing so.

could she be that calculating?

I don't know what to think. Everytime I hear something I change my thinking so Im just gonna wait until the result comes out and hope that justice is done
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 08, 2018, 01:55:12 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 08, 2018, 01:48:06 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 08, 2018, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 08, 2018, 01:00:55 PM
I've spoken to several fireside lawyers and a couple of actual lawyers.  The consensus is that it's 50:50 at the moment and the evidence of the other girl (who is slated to appear for the defence) will be crucial and how this evidence comes over will determine whether the defendants go in the witness box.

The testimony of that lady will be vital to the whole case, if she says it didn't look consensual or vice versa then it'll be very hard to prove what happened - i.e. reasonable doubt in legal terms. However everyone who was in that house bar the lady in question has yet to speak. So much more to come. I think Rory Harrison (who fella who left the girl home) will also be critical - the lady in question has gone on record to say he was civil to her, what he says about the events leading up to it all will have a massive bearing.

He's already said she was in hysterics in the whatsapp group messaging, so if she is crying wolf she did it pretty quickly after the event.....
It will be interesting both his, the Taxi drivers and those downstairs when she did leave as to her demeanour when doing so.

I'm assuming he'll back up his buddies on this, both the defence and prosecution will be very interested to his views on the behavior of everyone involved in the hours prior, that could be critical - the lady has already said she was drunk and can't remember everything about the night which isn't great for her case to be honest.

Hysterics at being video'd on a mobile or hysterics at a vile crime though, this is the question the case now hinges on. The girl who came into the room holds the key.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 01:56:50 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 08, 2018, 01:48:06 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 08, 2018, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 08, 2018, 01:00:55 PM
I've spoken to several fireside lawyers and a couple of actual lawyers.  The consensus is that it's 50:50 at the moment and the evidence of the other girl (who is slated to appear for the defence) will be crucial and how this evidence comes over will determine whether the defendants go in the witness box.

The testimony of that lady will be vital to the whole case, if she says it didn't look consensual or vice versa then it'll be very hard to prove what happened - i.e. reasonable doubt in legal terms. However everyone who was in that house bar the lady in question has yet to speak. So much more to come. I think Rory Harrison (who fella who left the girl home) will also be critical - the lady in question has gone on record to say he was civil to her, what he says about the events leading up to it all will have a massive bearing.

He's already said she was in hysterics in the whatsapp group messaging, so if she is crying wolf she did it pretty quickly after the event.....
It will be interesting both his, the Taxi drivers and those downstairs when she did leave as to her demeanour when doing so.

Being in hysterics doesn't mean you were raped ffs.

Another lad she says she didn't like tried to join in, she turned him down and he gave her abuse. That would put plenty of women into hysterics, especially when add in a sexual encounter she is beginning to regret. Means nothing in context of whether there was a rape or not.

Its clear these guys were pricks, but that doesn't mean they raped her.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on February 08, 2018, 01:58:00 PM
Saw a Twitter poll online "Did Paddy Jackson rape yer 1?"

Extensive media coverage of trials really brings out the idiots.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 01:59:09 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn't do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 02:00:58 PM
Can you fathom any scenario given the course of events in which they might be innocent Syf?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 08, 2018, 02:06:43 PM
It is a real eye opener to see some of what I thought were sensible individuals on this board indulging in the wildest of speculation and promulgating theories based upon zero evidence and pronouncing guilt or innocence when in possession of very few facts. Sad. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 02:09:03 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 02:00:58 PM
Can you fathom any scenario given the course of events in which they might be innocent Syf?

If the evidence pointed to innocence I would happily say so. It does not.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 08, 2018, 02:10:57 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 01:59:09 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn't do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.

Again pre-empting what she is going to say before she even takes the stand.  Did you carry out one yourself on the night in question?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 08, 2018, 02:06:43 PM
It is a real eye opener to see some of what I thought were sensible individuals on this board indulging in the wildest of speculation and promulgating theories based upon zero evidence and pronouncing guilt or innocence when in possession of very few facts. Sad.
Says more about you if you'd consider Sfy sensible
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 08, 2018, 02:12:17 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 02:09:03 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 02:00:58 PM
Can you fathom any scenario given the course of events in which they might be innocent Syf?

If the evidence pointed to innocence I would happily say so. It does not.

Can you list out the cast iron guilty evidence you have read 2nd hand in a paper or some other media outlet so far?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 02:15:08 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 02:09:03 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 02:00:58 PM
Can you fathom any scenario given the course of events in which they might be innocent Syf?

If the evidence pointed to innocence I would happily say so. It does not.

That's a ludicrous answer to a straightforward honest question.

But seeing as its all you've got, can I ask what evidence points to guilt?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 08, 2018, 02:29:05 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 01:59:09 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn't do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.
Ironically, the only reason anyone on the board would be hoping they'd get off is you.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 08, 2018, 02:32:48 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 01:59:09 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn't do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.

She doesn't need to have performed a forensic analysis of the room though, she simply needs to state whether what she saw looked consensual or not.

As for her texts, has she stated she knew nothing about Rugby?  Why then would she identify the accused as 'Ulster Rugby scum'?  If she knew nothing about Rugby why would she not just specify that she was attacked by 3 scumbags, instead of specifying that they were members of a certain sports team?  Why was this important and if she hadn't a clue about Rugby etc why did she mention this specifically?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 08, 2018, 02:38:22 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 08, 2018, 02:32:48 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 01:59:09 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn't do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.

She doesn't need to have performed a forensic analysis of the room though, she simply needs to state whether what she saw looked consensual or not.

As for her texts, has she stated she knew nothing about Rugby?  Why then would she identify the accused as 'Ulster Rugby scum'?  If she knew nothing about Rugby why would she not just specify that she was attacked by 3 scumbags, instead of specifying that they were members of a certain sports team?  Why was this important and if she hadn't a clue about Rugby etc why did she mention this specifically?

it could have been mentioned at the party they were rugby players. They may have told her themselves
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 02:39:28 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on February 08, 2018, 02:38:22 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 08, 2018, 02:32:48 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 01:59:09 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn't do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.

She doesn't need to have performed a forensic analysis of the room though, she simply needs to state whether what she saw looked consensual or not.

As for her texts, has she stated she knew nothing about Rugby?  Why then would she identify the accused as 'Ulster Rugby scum'?  If she knew nothing about Rugby why would she not just specify that she was attacked by 3 scumbags, instead of specifying that they were members of a certain sports team?  Why was this important and if she hadn't a clue about Rugby etc why did she mention this specifically?

it could have been mentioned at the party they were rugby players. They may have told her themselves

I dare say someone might have mentioned it! Mother of God!  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 02:42:02 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 08, 2018, 02:32:48 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 01:59:09 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn't do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.

She doesn't need to have performed a forensic analysis of the room though, she simply needs to state whether what she saw looked consensual or not.

As for her texts, has she stated she knew nothing about Rugby?  Why then would she identify the accused as 'Ulster Rugby scum'?  If she knew nothing about Rugby why would she not just specify that she was attacked by 3 scumbags, instead of specifying that they were members of a certain sports team?  Why was this important and if she hadn't a clue about Rugby etc why did she mention this specifically?
She knew who Jackson was from meeting him when she was working in a bar as part of a drinks promotion in 2015.

Obviously given that she had gone back to the party at Jackson's house she would have very quickly found out that the others were rugby players even if she wasn't a follower of the sport.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: NAG1 on February 08, 2018, 02:45:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 02:09:03 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 08, 2018, 02:00:58 PM
Can you fathom any scenario given the course of events in which they might be innocent Syf?

If the evidence pointed to innocence I would happily say so. It does not.

Truth is you are going on wild speculation, rumour and innuendo from a trial that is not complete yet. You are pontificating on something which you have no knowledge of, like most other on here. The exception is that you are believing in the stuff that you are posting, with some kind of devine complex.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 02:53:37 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 08, 2018, 03:08:27 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 02:53:37 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

Happy to be corrected with examples but I don't recall anyone say they are 100% innocent - most posts I have read either people suggest waiting until the end of the trial before coming up with a final opinion of your own or they are just disputing some of the evidence which others think convinces them of their guilt and most people all in agreement that even if innocent their behaviour on the night and messages were not good.  Even at the end of the trial if you are still convinced of guilty or innocent that is fine - however, you have to accept the juries verdict (not going to start mentioning appeals, etc) because the jury is the only people who see and hear ALL the Evidence.  I would suggest most people online is reading media reports about it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 03:12:36 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 08, 2018, 02:29:05 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 01:59:09 PM
Those desperately searching for a way off the hook for the frat boys will be sorely disappointed when it turns out the girl who walked in didn't do a forensic analysis of the room before leaving.
Ironically, the only reason anyone on the board would be hoping they'd get off is you.

Don't lie, Asal Mor.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: NAG1 on February 08, 2018, 03:13:18 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 02:53:37 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I am neither for or against any side in this trial, what ever the verdict is the verdict is. My issue is with either side especially Syf pontificating on something which they no little or nothing about, as if it is total fact.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on February 08, 2018, 03:16:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 02:53:37 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I haven't made up my mind and won't pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won't find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trueblue1234 on February 08, 2018, 04:25:55 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on February 08, 2018, 03:16:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 02:53:37 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I haven't made up my mind and won't pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won't find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.

Unfortunately Sfy has made this thread about him rather than the issue at hand. And you can be sure that is there is a guilty verdict, he will see this as victory and will point to other posters who had stated they would rather wait to see the rest of the evidence before making a decision as being wrong. He will play it out, trying to reinforce his superiority despite still being completely incorrect to make a decision based on one day's evidence.

Unfortunately he pollutes too many threads now.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 08, 2018, 04:28:39 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 02:53:37 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I was rounding on any of the clowns who were pronouncing judgement, regardless of what side they came down on...you know the people who were sure the defendants were guilty after the prosecution's opening statement on day 1...or were certain they were innocent after the alleged victim was cross-examined.

Was not of course including Syferus in the 'what I thought were sensible individuals' though  ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 04:32:01 PM
There's an obvious solution if Syferus is pissing ye off so much.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 08, 2018, 04:55:23 PM
Based on the performance of the lady and the flakiness of some of the questions it is possible to come to a view

Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

Rory Harrison's barrister tells woman his client formed the view she was staring at Paddy Jackson at one point during the party. She accepts her memory is "hazy", so he asks if his client could be right. She says: "he could well be right about that but he's sitting in the dock
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 08, 2018, 05:12:21 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 04:32:01 PM
There's an obvious solution if Syferus is pissing ye off so much.

Off course there is the ignore button but do you not believe a poster who comes out with statements like if found innocent justice won't have been served.  Innocent until proven guilty is a cliche should be challenged.  Any time he is challenged on simple questions either deflects or doesn't answer.  Or resorts to name calling such as cavemen.  He is a trump like character.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 08, 2018, 05:13:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 08, 2018, 04:55:23 PM
Based on the performance of the lady and the flakiness of some of the questions it is possible to come to a view

Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

Rory Harrison's barrister tells woman his client formed the view she was staring at Paddy Jackson at one point during the party. She accepts her memory is "hazy", so he asks if his client could be right. She says: "he could well be right about that but he's sitting in the dock
"hazy"
"could be right"

Not exactly beyond reasonable doubt is it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 08, 2018, 05:47:00 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 08, 2018, 05:13:06 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 08, 2018, 04:55:23 PM
Based on the performance of the lady and the flakiness of some of the questions it is possible to come to a view

Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

4h

Rory Harrison's barrister tells woman his client formed the view she was staring at Paddy Jackson at one point during the party. She accepts her memory is "hazy", so he asks if his client could be right. She says: "he could well be right about that but he's sitting in the dock
"hazy"
"could be right"

Not exactly beyond reasonable doubt is it?

Err ladeen, she's talking about looking at someone at a party, not being raped. This suggestion comes from a man whose texts prove he was trying to keep a lid on the victim after the fact. Note what he is charged with also. Some of ye are really getting desperate now.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 08, 2018, 07:34:08 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on February 08, 2018, 06:32:35 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 08, 2018, 04:25:55 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on February 08, 2018, 03:16:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 02:53:37 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I haven't made up my mind and won't pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won't find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.

Unfortunately Sfy has made this thread about him rather than the issue at hand. And you can be sure that is there is a guilty verdict, he will see this as victory and will point to other posters who had stated they would rather wait to see the rest of the evidence before making a decision as being wrong. He will play it out, trying to reinforce his superiority despite still being completely incorrect to make a decision based on one day's evidence.

Unfortunately he pollutes too many threads now.

I'm a little reluctant to take this thread off-topic more than it already has, but as it is...

...I have been messing about on the interwebs since around 1999 when I was first exposed to it as a naive, wild-eyed teen and ever since then I've participated on quite a lot of forums, message boards, chatrooms, newsgroups etc. right up to this day. And in my experience I don't think I've ever came across a poster/member/individual of any forum etc. that I have been on, or even in the off-line world, that displays a more blatant, stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect than the poster on this board who goes under the handle of Syferus. It is f*cking painful to read most of his/her posts, even though I have him/her on ignore they are inevitably quoted by others in response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131125-why-the-stupid-say-theyre-smart

And back on-topic, the trial has only really just begun, I'll wait until all evidence has been presented before I even being to start forming an opinion.

You're no fun
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 08, 2018, 08:20:02 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 04:32:01 PM
There's an obvious solution if Syferus is pissing ye off so much.
Yes i know there is....which is why I keep imploring him to stop talking nonsense. And thanks for the support!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Aaron Boone on February 08, 2018, 08:27:09 PM
At least we have moved on from Rory Best.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Clov on February 08, 2018, 10:54:12 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on February 08, 2018, 06:32:35 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 08, 2018, 04:25:55 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on February 08, 2018, 03:16:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 02:53:37 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I haven't made up my mind and won't pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won't find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.

Unfortunately Sfy has made this thread about him rather than the issue at hand. And you can be sure that is there is a guilty verdict, he will see this as victory and will point to other posters who had stated they would rather wait to see the rest of the evidence before making a decision as being wrong. He will play it out, trying to reinforce his superiority despite still being completely incorrect to make a decision based on one day's evidence.

Unfortunately he pollutes too many threads now.

I'm a little reluctant to take this thread off-topic more than it already has, but as it is...

...I have been messing about on the interwebs since around 1999 when I was first exposed to it as a naive, wild-eyed teen and ever since then I've participated on quite a lot of forums, message boards, chatrooms, newsgroups etc. right up to this day. And in my experience I don't think I've ever came across a poster/member/individual of any forum etc. that I have been on, or even in the off-line world, that displays a more blatant, stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect than the poster on this board who goes under the handle of Syferus. It is f*cking painful to read most of his/her posts, even though I have him/her on ignore they are inevitably quoted by others in response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131125-why-the-stupid-say-theyre-smart

And back on-topic, the trial has only really just begun, I'll wait until all evidence has been presented before I even being to start forming an opinion.

As Charles Bukowski put it "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence."
This thread epitomises that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 08, 2018, 11:13:32 PM
Quote from: Clov on February 08, 2018, 10:54:12 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on February 08, 2018, 06:32:35 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 08, 2018, 04:25:55 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on February 08, 2018, 03:16:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 02:53:37 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I haven't made up my mind and won't pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won't find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.

Unfortunately Sfy has made this thread about him rather than the issue at hand. And you can be sure that is there is a guilty verdict, he will see this as victory and will point to other posters who had stated they would rather wait to see the rest of the evidence before making a decision as being wrong. He will play it out, trying to reinforce his superiority despite still being completely incorrect to make a decision based on one day's evidence.

Unfortunately he pollutes too many threads now.

I'm a little reluctant to take this thread off-topic more than it already has, but as it is...

...I have been messing about on the interwebs since around 1999 when I was first exposed to it as a naive, wild-eyed teen and ever since then I've participated on quite a lot of forums, message boards, chatrooms, newsgroups etc. right up to this day. And in my experience I don't think I've ever came across a poster/member/individual of any forum etc. that I have been on, or even in the off-line world, that displays a more blatant, stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect than the poster on this board who goes under the handle of Syferus. It is f*cking painful to read most of his/her posts, even though I have him/her on ignore they are inevitably quoted by others in response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131125-why-the-stupid-say-theyre-smart

And back on-topic, the trial has only really just begun, I'll wait until all evidence has been presented before I even being to start forming an opinion.

As Charles Bukowski put it "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence."
This thread epitomises that.

Says it all
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Over the Bar on February 08, 2018, 11:20:25 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 08, 2018, 11:13:32 PM
Quote from: Clov on February 08, 2018, 10:54:12 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on February 08, 2018, 06:32:35 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 08, 2018, 04:25:55 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on February 08, 2018, 03:16:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 02:53:37 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I haven't made up my mind and won't pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won't find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.

Unfortunately Sfy has made this thread about him rather than the issue at hand. And you can be sure that is there is a guilty verdict, he will see this as victory and will point to other posters who had stated they would rather wait to see the rest of the evidence before making a decision as being wrong. He will play it out, trying to reinforce his superiority despite still being completely incorrect to make a decision based on one day's evidence.

Unfortunately he pollutes too many threads now.

I'm a little reluctant to take this thread off-topic more than it already has, but as it is...

...I have been messing about on the interwebs since around 1999 when I was first exposed to it as a naive, wild-eyed teen and ever since then I've participated on quite a lot of forums, message boards, chatrooms, newsgroups etc. right up to this day. And in my experience I don't think I've ever came across a poster/member/individual of any forum etc. that I have been on, or even in the off-line world, that displays a more blatant, stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect than the poster on this board who goes under the handle of Syferus. It is f*cking painful to read most of his/her posts, even though I have him/her on ignore they are inevitably quoted by others in response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131125-why-the-stupid-say-theyre-smart

And back on-topic, the trial has only really just begun, I'll wait until all evidence has been presented before I even being to start forming an opinion.

As Charles Bukowski put it "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence."
This thread epitomises that.

Says it all

Empty vessels.....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 09, 2018, 01:40:24 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 12:08:31 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 12:02:54 PM
Ya. It's a well known fact that everyone reacts the same.  ::)

Broadly speaking they do. Thats why you have things like the five stages of grief, theres actually a name for it - Rape Trauma Syndrome.
I should avoid this thread but before I do,

Broadly speaking people do NOT react the same.
Yes there are 5 well land marked stages of grief that people generally pass through, however one person may linger in a shocked state far longer than someone else. One person may get stuck forever and not get to the stage of acceptance, another may linger long in anger or despair before moving on.
Like wise with Rape Trauma Syndrome, broadly speaking people do not react the same.
The evidence of the demeanor of the woman during that night and subsequent days does not contradict her claim that she was raped. Her demeanor during all that period can be perceived as being entirely consistent with a rape trauma experience.

Going by the defense's line of questioning so far and their focus on consent, I'd say the case will probably come down to,
did she give consent at the time AND can the defendants prove beyond reasonable doubt that she gave consent?
Did she give clear consent to all the sexual activity that was inflicted upon her that night?
Did she say no at any time?
If she didn't say no, why not? was she incapacitated? threatened? did she feel intimidated?












Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 09, 2018, 09:39:33 AM
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2018, 01:40:24 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 12:08:31 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 12:02:54 PM
Ya. It's a well known fact that everyone reacts the same.  ::)

Broadly speaking they do. Thats why you have things like the five stages of grief, theres actually a name for it - Rape Trauma Syndrome.
I should avoid this thread but before I do,

Broadly speaking people do NOT react the same.
Yes there are 5 well land marked stages of grief that people generally pass through, however one person may linger in a shocked state far longer than someone else. One person may get stuck forever and not get to the stage of acceptance, another may linger long in anger or despair before moving on.
Like wise with Rape Trauma Syndrome, broadly speaking people do not react the same.
The evidence of the demeanor of the woman during that night and subsequent days does not contradict her claim that she was raped. Her demeanor during all that period can be perceived as being entirely consistent with a rape trauma experience.

Going by the defense's line of questioning so far and their focus on consent, I'd say the case will probably come down to,
did she give consent at the time AND can the defendants prove beyond reasonable doubt that she gave consent?
Did she give clear consent to all the sexual activity that was inflicted upon her that night?
Did she say no at any time?
If she didn't say no, why not? was she incapacitated? threatened? did she feel intimidated?

100 % right MS...you should have avoided the thread....what a load of waffle!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 10:15:16 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.

He's mentioned that all he needs to do to get a proper view on things is to read this thread, that way he'll have made his mind up!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mayo4Sam on February 09, 2018, 10:17:46 AM
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2018, 01:40:24 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 12:08:31 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 12:02:54 PM
Ya. It's a well known fact that everyone reacts the same.  ::)

Broadly speaking they do. Thats why you have things like the five stages of grief, theres actually a name for it - Rape Trauma Syndrome.
I should avoid this thread but before I do,

Broadly speaking people do NOT react the same.
Yes there are 5 well land marked stages of grief that people generally pass through, however one person may linger in a shocked state far longer than someone else. One person may get stuck forever and not get to the stage of acceptance, another may linger long in anger or despair before moving on.
Like wise with Rape Trauma Syndrome, broadly speaking people do not react the same.
The evidence of the demeanor of the woman during that night and subsequent days does not contradict her claim that she was raped. Her demeanor during all that period can be perceived as being entirely consistent with a rape trauma experience.

Going by the defense's line of questioning so far and their focus on consent, I'd say the case will probably come down to,
did she give consent at the time AND can the defendants prove beyond reasonable doubt that she gave consent?
Did she give clear consent to all the sexual activity that was inflicted upon her that night?
Did she say no at any time?
If she didn't say no, why not? was she incapacitated? threatened? did she feel intimidated?
You say people broadly don't act the same and then go onto explain that people do broadly act the same but there are times that people deviate from this.

Going back to my original point, people in stressful situations tend to act in a similar manner. I would like to know if this ladies behavior is consistent with other rape victims. That is with the caveat that some peoples reactions are outside the norm, so non-consistency doesn't necessarily prove she wasn't raped but consistency could go a long way to helping her
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on February 09, 2018, 10:43:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 09, 2018, 10:53:58 AM
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.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on February 09, 2018, 11:46:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 12:35:44 PM
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?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 09, 2018, 12:58:00 PM
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?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 01:00:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 01:04:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 01:09:04 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?

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
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: straightred on February 09, 2018, 01:11:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 09, 2018, 01:13:42 PM
Quote from: straightred on February 09, 2018, 01:11:55 PM
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?

It's not forensics they're looking at. I'm sure it's to give them a chance to get their bearings and visualise stuff. When someone says I went up stairs and the bedroom was on the left or whatever, they can picture the scene a lot better. It might also be used to show how someone may, or may not, see something from outside the room if the door was opened for example.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 09, 2018, 01:17:59 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 09, 2018, 12:58:00 PM
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?

Any defendant of previous good character is entitled to a good character direction from the Judge ie the jury are entitled to be told that a defendant has no record and that the jury may consider this as making it more unlikely that they committed the offence alleged. It's been that long since I've seen a witness called that I can't remember the rules for doing so off the top of my head.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 09, 2018, 01:20:51 PM
Quote from: straightred on February 09, 2018, 01:11:55 PM
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?

It gives them a chance to see the house, visualize what's happened and gather a better perception of the events. The big details in this case are to come - I think the 'sound' of the house will become quite important. It's already been stated it wasn't a 'party', by that I take it the music was low to muted and I've a fair idea that all involved as witnesses in this case will be asked to describe what, if any noises they heard coming from upstairs. I had written before in here that the young lady in question who came into the middle of the whole thing, will be asked especially to describe if what she heard (if she can remember) before she entered the room sounded like, as in, did it appear to be a struggle or was there any noises to indicate what was happening behind the door / indeed, was it noise that prompted her to even go up to the room in the first place / why?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 09, 2018, 01:53:07 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2018, 01:40:24 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 12:08:31 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 12:02:54 PM
Ya. It's a well known fact that everyone reacts the same.  ::)

Broadly speaking they do. Thats why you have things like the five stages of grief, theres actually a name for it - Rape Trauma Syndrome.
I should avoid this thread but before I do,

Broadly speaking people do NOT react the same.
Yes there are 5 well land marked stages of grief that people generally pass through, however one person may linger in a shocked state far longer than someone else. One person may get stuck forever and not get to the stage of acceptance, another may linger long in anger or despair before moving on.
Like wise with Rape Trauma Syndrome, broadly speaking people do not react the same.
The evidence of the demeanor of the woman during that night and subsequent days does not contradict her claim that she was raped. Her demeanor during all that period can be perceived as being entirely consistent with a rape trauma experience.

Going by the defense's line of questioning so far and their focus on consent, I'd say the case will probably come down to,
did she give consent at the time AND can the defendants prove beyond reasonable doubt that she gave consent?
Did she give clear consent to all the sexual activity that was inflicted upon her that night?
Did she say no at any time?
If she didn't say no, why not? was she incapacitated? threatened? did she feel intimidated?

So what you have concluded  is that in a rape case the presence or absence of consent is the deciding factor?
How many years  in Harvard Law School did it take for you to be able to come to that conclusion?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 02:00:49 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 01:04:24 PM
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.

The judge KNOWS the jury saw Best in the gallery. This was caused by Best's attendance.

The judge does NOT KNOW if the jury have seen a "backlash aimed at Best" on social media. Again though, this was caused by Best.

Can't see where the sympathy for Best is coming from.

This is a separate issue to belief of whether the accuses are guilty or not.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 02:34:02 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 02:00:49 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 01:04:24 PM
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.

The judge KNOWS the jury saw Best in the gallery. This was caused by Best's attendance.

The judge does NOT KNOW if the jury have seen a "backlash aimed at Best" on social media. Again though, this was caused by Best.

Can't see where the sympathy for Best is coming from.

This is a separate issue to belief of whether the accuses are guilty or not.

So if they are not guilty MS, and it was just young ones having sex, and afterwards sent text messages bragging about the night before, sent between the lads (normal stuff nowadays) will you then back Best?

Or have you the lads guilty already in this short space of time with the evidence only half given out? Fireside lawyer much? or just a moral crusader on "top shaggers"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 03:04:56 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 02:34:02 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 02:00:49 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 09, 2018, 01:04:24 PM
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.

The judge KNOWS the jury saw Best in the gallery. This was caused by Best's attendance.

The judge does NOT KNOW if the jury have seen a "backlash aimed at Best" on social media. Again though, this was caused by Best.

Can't see where the sympathy for Best is coming from.

This is a separate issue to belief of whether the accuses are guilty or not.

So if they are not guilty MS, and it was just young ones having sex, and afterwards sent text messages bragging about the night before, sent between the lads (normal stuff nowadays) will you then back Best?

Or have you the lads guilty already in this short space of time with the evidence only half given out? Fireside lawyer much? or just a moral crusader on "top shaggers"

I thought I couldn't have been clearer but I'll try again.

Regardless of how the trial ends up I think Best (especially) was very wrong to attend. It displayed poor judgement at best and I personally think he allowed himself to be used by the defence. All they're trying to do is create any doubt.....it's their job. Best might be a decent fella and most people say he is but this was a misjudgement. Especially when you come out with a c**k and bull story afterwards which is clearly false. Best is a tremendous player and as I've said supposed to be a very decent guy. He let himself down here in my view.

If you want my opinion on the trial here it is. I'm not sure what happened. I'm only guessing like everyone else. I hope it becomes clearer as the trial unfolds. I'm no prude and I'd be fairly aware of what goes on these days. Little would surprise me. I had a strong leaning early on I'll admit but I'm trying to keep an open mind now. I also now realise that if all the evidence is not being reported in the media I need to be a bit more cautious about forming my opinions. Can I be truly sure - probably not. Lets hope the jury can be when it's all over.

One other point to clarify though - text messages sent between the lads might be normal stuff nowadays but that doesn't make it right. They read quite poorly to me and seem a little sad and juvenile. Not a crime of course but a tad pathetic.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:28:56 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 09, 2018, 03:45:34 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

or why did the girl lie in the Oliver Mears case?

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 09, 2018, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:28:56 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

Agree with your assessment MR2 but while his attendance at court was a defence tactic, I think it is poor judgement from Best to offer a character reference.  If they're acquitted he's not needed but he's already received heavy criticism and he must have known this would be a high profile trial.  I would think if they're found guilty Best leaves himself open to criticism for giving a character reference for a rapist(s).

If we take this thread as being representative of public opinion, if Jackson and Olding are convicted you wouldn't want to be within a million miles of giving them a character reference!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 09, 2018, 03:49:05 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?
Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's on trial for rape and will end up in clink if convicted??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 03:51:52 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:28:56 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

No, it's poor judgement full stop. It was going to create a sh1t storm, as such a recognisable figure he was being used by the defence to send a message to the jury plus the pure rubbish explanation.......it was very poor judgement.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 09, 2018, 03:56:50 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 09, 2018, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:28:56 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

Agree with your assessment MR2 but while his attendance at court was a defence tactic, I think it is poor judgement from Best to offer a character reference.  If they're acquitted he's not needed but he's already received heavy criticism and he must have known this would be a high profile trial.  I would think if they're found guilty Best leaves himself open to criticism for giving a character reference for a rapist(s).

If we take this thread as being representative of public opinion, if Jackson and Olding are convicted you wouldn't want to be within a million miles of giving them a character reference!!
A character reference may be used to mitigate a sentence. It is not a social media popularity contest. Say he is guilty.   PJ may be quite a decent person. Maybe this was really out of character. Or maybe he is a danger to women. The character reference can help in sentencing appropriately.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:59:42 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 09, 2018, 03:56:50 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 09, 2018, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:28:56 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

Agree with your assessment MR2 but while his attendance at court was a defence tactic, I think it is poor judgement from Best to offer a character reference.  If they're acquitted he's not needed but he's already received heavy criticism and he must have known this would be a high profile trial.  I would think if they're found guilty Best leaves himself open to criticism for giving a character reference for a rapist(s).

If we take this thread as being representative of public opinion, if Jackson and Olding are convicted you wouldn't want to be within a million miles of giving them a character reference!!
A character reference may be used to mitigate a sentence. It is not a social media popularity contest. Say he is guilty.   PJ may be quite a decent person. Maybe this was really out of character. Or maybe he is a danger to women. The character reference can help in sentencing appropriately.

I can't beleive I have to say it, but being a decent person and being a rapist are mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 09, 2018, 04:03:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Mind bending stuff here.

The prosecution legal team have definitely missed a trick in not employing this strategy.  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 04:30:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 09, 2018, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Franko on February 09, 2018, 04:03:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Mind bending stuff here.

The prosecution legal team have definitely missed a trick in not employing this strategy.  ::)
;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 04:30:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you've got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old "let's see what happens" spiel. Well, it doesn't look like that's what you're doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it's the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 09, 2018, 04:47:43 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.
You keeping following this line even though there are many cases (in the last few months!) of men who had been falsely accused of rape. It happens and as the complainant is granted lifelong anonymity it is the man who suffers. Look up Liam Allan, Solomon Makele, Connor Fitzgerald etc and you're only scratching the surface.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 09, 2018, 04:50:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:59:42 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 09, 2018, 03:56:50 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 09, 2018, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:28:56 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

Agree with your assessment MR2 but while his attendance at court was a defence tactic, I think it is poor judgement from Best to offer a character reference.  If they're acquitted he's not needed but he's already received heavy criticism and he must have known this would be a high profile trial.  I would think if they're found guilty Best leaves himself open to criticism for giving a character reference for a rapist(s).

If we take this thread as being representative of public opinion, if Jackson and Olding are convicted you wouldn't want to be within a million miles of giving them a character reference!!
A character reference may be used to mitigate a sentence. It is not a social media popularity contest. Say he is guilty.   PJ may be quite a decent person. Maybe this was really out of character. Or maybe he is a danger to women. The character reference can help in sentencing appropriately.

I can't beleive I have to say it, but being a decent person and being a rapist are mutually exclusive.
And if he is guilty and he denies it to the end without any remorse he will get a longer sentence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 04:52:27 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 09, 2018, 04:50:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:59:42 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 09, 2018, 03:56:50 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 09, 2018, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:28:56 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

Agree with your assessment MR2 but while his attendance at court was a defence tactic, I think it is poor judgement from Best to offer a character reference.  If they're acquitted he's not needed but he's already received heavy criticism and he must have known this would be a high profile trial.  I would think if they're found guilty Best leaves himself open to criticism for giving a character reference for a rapist(s).

If we take this thread as being representative of public opinion, if Jackson and Olding are convicted you wouldn't want to be within a million miles of giving them a character reference!!
A character reference may be used to mitigate a sentence. It is not a social media popularity contest. Say he is guilty.   PJ may be quite a decent person. Maybe this was really out of character. Or maybe he is a danger to women. The character reference can help in sentencing appropriately.

I can't beleive I have to say it, but being a decent person and being a rapist are mutually exclusive.
And if he is guilty and he denies it to the end without any remorse he will get a longer sentence.

Most rapists rely on how hard rape cases are to try when they decide how to plea. The punishment for being found guilty and having denied it should be more than it currently is.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 09, 2018, 05:08:51 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 09, 2018, 03:51:52 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:28:56 PM
Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

No, it's poor judgement full stop. It was going to create a sh1t storm, as such a recognisable figure he was being used by the defence to send a message to the jury plus the pure rubbish explanation.......it was very poor judgement.

Yeah, extremely poor judgement regardless of the outcome of the trial
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 09, 2018, 05:29:30 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 04:30:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you've got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old "let's see what happens" spiel. Well, it doesn't look like that's what you're doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it's the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

Brilliant! ;D ;D ;D

You do realise that the fact that there's a trial going on at all insinuates that the alleged victim may be lying!

Your reputation for making a show of yourself on this board precedes you but, hats off, this is some of your best work.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 05:30:17 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 04:30:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you've got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old "let's see what happens" spiel. Well, it doesn't look like that's what you're doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it's the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

Hmm? I've been called out? You numpty where have I personally laid blame? You on the other hand have been caught out with examples and have yet to respond to it! saying it's the exception rather than the rule just shows you up even more!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 09, 2018, 05:38:54 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 05:30:17 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 04:30:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you've got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old "let's see what happens" spiel. Well, it doesn't look like that's what you're doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it's the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

Hmm? I've been called out? You numpty where have I personally laid blame? You on the other hand have been caught out with examples and have yet to respond to it! saying it's the exception rather than the rule just shows you up even more!

I think he must have used the ignore function on me...lol.  when challenged showed up to be a clown on numerous occasions.  I daresay if they are convicted guilty his first thoughts won't be off the girl but it will be straight on here to pontificate about being right.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 09, 2018, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 04:30:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you've got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old "let's see what happens" spiel. Well, it doesn't look like that's what you're doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it's the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

So certain sayings like the one you quoted above you are happy to stand over but the old innocent until proven guilty is just a cliche.  Your more confused than a blind lesbian at a fish market.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 09, 2018, 05:49:52 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 09, 2018, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 04:30:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 09, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you've got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old "let's see what happens" spiel. Well, it doesn't look like that's what you're doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it's the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

So certain sayings like the one you quoted above you are happy to stand over but the old innocent until proven guilty is just a cliche.  Your more confused than a blind lesbian at a fish market.
I take it that you are not chairwoman of the local feminist collective
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on February 09, 2018, 07:49:01 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on February 08, 2018, 03:16:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 02:53:37 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.



I haven't made up my mind and won't pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won't find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.

+1. Easily the most condescending half wit on the board.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 10, 2018, 02:19:52 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on February 09, 2018, 10:17:46 AM
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2018, 01:40:24 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on February 08, 2018, 12:08:31 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 08, 2018, 12:02:54 PM
Ya. It's a well known fact that everyone reacts the same.  ::)

Broadly speaking they do. Thats why you have things like the five stages of grief, theres actually a name for it - Rape Trauma Syndrome.
I should avoid this thread but before I do,

Broadly speaking people do NOT react the same.
Yes there are 5 well land marked stages of grief that people generally pass through, however one person may linger in a shocked state far longer than someone else. One person may get stuck forever and not get to the stage of acceptance, another may linger long in anger or despair before moving on.
Like wise with Rape Trauma Syndrome, broadly speaking people do not react the same.
The evidence of the demeanor of the woman during that night and subsequent days does not contradict her claim that she was raped. Her demeanor during all that period can be perceived as being entirely consistent with a rape trauma experience.

Going by the defense's line of questioning so far and their focus on consent, I'd say the case will probably come down to,
did she give consent at the time AND can the defendants prove beyond reasonable doubt that she gave consent?
Did she give clear consent to all the sexual activity that was inflicted upon her that night?
Did she say no at any time?
If she didn't say no, why not? was she incapacitated? threatened? did she feel intimidated?
You say people broadly don't act the same and then go onto explain that people do broadly act the same but there are times that people deviate from this.
I don't.

QuoteGoing back to my original point, people in stressful situations tend to act in a similar manner. I would like to know if this ladies behavior is consistent with other rape victims. That is with the caveat that some peoples reactions are outside the norm, so non-consistency doesn't necessarily prove she wasn't raped but consistency could go a long way to helping her
Do the research. My reply is consistent with research.
People act differently in post trauma situations and this woman's behaviour is consistent with a possible post rape trauma.
Her behavior may not be consistent with what your perception is, but that's  another debate.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on February 10, 2018, 09:59:37 AM
Some rubbish spouted in this thread. The decision to convict is still very much in the balance but I suspect that so far there is not enough hard evidence to convict either Jackson or Olding but that is not to say that they are not guilty. Either way, both the accused and in particular the alleged victim will have come through a harrowing experience and will have to bear the scars for a long time.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 10, 2018, 11:11:47 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on February 10, 2018, 09:59:37 AM
Some rubbish spouted in this thread. The decision to convict is still very much in the balance but I suspect that so far there is not enough hard evidence to convict either Jackson or Olding but that is not to say that they are not guilty. Either way, both the accused and in particular the alleged victim will have come through a harrowing experience and will have to bear the scars for a long time.
From what I've read so far I believe the girl but I also think, as someone said earlier on the thread, that the men didn't realise they'd done anything illegal. Ignorance is no defence but if the girl who walked in proves to be a convincing witness and says it looked consensual, I don't see how a jury can convict beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when the girl herself has admitted to being hazy about some of the details.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 10, 2018, 11:41:49 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 10, 2018, 11:11:47 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on February 10, 2018, 09:59:37 AM
Some rubbish spouted in this thread. The decision to convict is still very much in the balance but I suspect that so far there is not enough hard evidence to convict either Jackson or Olding but that is not to say that they are not guilty. Either way, both the accused and in particular the alleged victim will have come through a harrowing experience and will have to bear the scars for a long time.
From what I've read so far I believe the girl but I also think, as someone said earlier on the thread, that the men didn't realise they'd done anything illegal. Ignorance is no defence but if the girl who walked in proves to be a convincing witness and says it looked consensual, I don't see how a jury can convict beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when the girl herself has admitted to being hazy about some of the details.

I would tend to agree to that simply on what is being reported however, things like the physical damage on her may be the very crucial evidence. If there is clear physical damage to the girl, which I believe there is, and it is fairly contemporaneous then this is unbiased evidence of forceable sex. It won't take a big jump for that to be construed as non consensual
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 10, 2018, 12:17:37 PM
I've said before about implied consent and I think this was the case with the Ched Evans trial where his friend wasn't guilty of rape but he was. Might have something similar here, PJ might argue that he believed he had consent as defence, not sure how Olding would go about it though. I'm inclined to believe the girl is telling the truth with what she says, the sequence of events to me suggest that she fully believed she had been raped right from the offset and there is next to no chance that  this is some sort of fabrication to hide promiscuous behaviour.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 10, 2018, 02:27:50 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on February 10, 2018, 09:59:37 AM
Some rubbish spouted in this thread. The decision to convict is still very much in the balance but I suspect that so far there is not enough hard evidence to convict either Jackson or Olding but that is not to say that they are not guilty. Either way, both the accused and in particular the alleged victim will have come through a harrowing experience and will have to bear the scars for a long time,
Jackson and Olding havent said anything yet but will they be credible? Will they be consistent?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 10, 2018, 04:06:22 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 10, 2018, 02:27:50 PM
Jackson and Olding havent said anything yet but will they be credible? Will they be consistent?

This is a trial about the behaviour of some middle class young people from affluent Belfast.  Both plaintiff and defendants have had privileged education. 

The plaintiff has shown herself to be resilient, articulate and combative, will the defendants do the same?  I believe they will be very well prepped and try to show themselves to be 'modest' and ashamed of their behaviour but startled that they have been accused of anything illegal. 

The plaintiff withstood the battery of four barristers for a week while the defendants have the luxury of just one person scrutinising each of them in detail. 

Expect excruciating details of sexual activity to be drawn from the main defendants.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 10, 2018, 04:17:24 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 10, 2018, 04:06:22 PM
Both plaintiff and defendants have had privileged education. 

Pffft. Olding went to BRA.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 10, 2018, 04:57:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 10, 2018, 04:17:24 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 10, 2018, 04:06:22 PM
Both plaintiff and defendants have had privileged education. 

Pffft. Olding went to BRA.
Had it not been removed by the time he arrived on the scene?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:12:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:12:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:12:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:44:42 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:12:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That's cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting they do.

Guess what - we're not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 10, 2018, 05:46:37 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:12:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

Nope save time and money and ask Syferus
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 10, 2018, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 10, 2018, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 10, 2018, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play

I'd imagine if a rugby player was having sex with someone who's 7 half stone (this is random, nothing to do with case) that it could lead to some pain, especially if you're drunk and up for some wild stuff
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 06:10:56 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 10, 2018, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 10, 2018, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play

I'd imagine if a rugby player was having sex with someone who's 7 half stone (this is random, nothing to do with case) that it could lead to some pain, especially if you're drunk and up for some wild stuff

Christ.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 10, 2018, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:44:42 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:12:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That's cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting they do.

Guess what - we're not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.

those holding flag are idiots
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 06:33:32 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:44:42 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:12:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That's cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting they do.

Guess what - we're not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.

those holding flag are idiots

Nope, but those that try to gloss over the fact rape victims are regularly and systematically marginalised and pretend that there is a simple equivalence between a sign saying "I beleive the victim" and "I believe the accused".. well, I'm being charitable if I say they're misguided.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 10, 2018, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 06:33:32 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:44:42 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:12:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That's cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting they do.

Guess what - we're not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.

those holding flag are idiots

Nope, but those that try to gloss over the fact rape victims are regularly and systematically marginalised and pretend that there is a simple equivalence between a sign saying "I beleive the victim" and "I believe the accused".. well, I'm being charitable if I say they're misguided.

Until the verdict is delivered there is equivalence between both statements.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 06:45:18 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 10, 2018, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 06:33:32 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:44:42 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:12:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That's cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting they do.

Guess what - we're not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.

those holding flag are idiots

Nope, but those that try to gloss over the fact rape victims are regularly and systematically marginalised and pretend that there is a simple equivalence between a sign saying "I beleive the victim" and "I believe the accused".. well, I'm being charitable if I say they're misguided.

Until the verdict is delivered there is equivalence between both statements.

And someone again tries to gloss over the context of rape trials and rape victims, instead comfortable to pretend this case can be looked at independent of the environment it originated from.

Rape is not a crime that comes without massive baggage and that seems to leave a lot of people here in a very uncomfortable position.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: thebar on February 10, 2018, 06:54:55 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 06:45:18 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 10, 2018, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 06:33:32 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:44:42 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:12:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That's cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting they do.

Guess what - we're not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.

those holding flag are idiots

Nope, but those that try to gloss over the fact rape victims are regularly and systematically marginalised and pretend that there is a simple equivalence between a sign saying "I beleive the victim" and "I believe the accused".. well, I'm being charitable if I say they're misguided.

Until the verdict is delivered there is equivalence between both statements.

And someone again tries to gloss over the context of rape trials and rape victims, instead comfortable to pretend this case can be looked at independent of the environment it originated from.

Rape is not a crime that comes without massive baggage and that seems to leave a lot of people here in a very uncomfortable position.

How come?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: michaelg on February 10, 2018, 07:04:30 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 06:45:18 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 10, 2018, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 06:33:32 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:44:42 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:12:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That's cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting they do.

Guess what - we're not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.

those holding flag are idiots

Nope, but those that try to gloss over the fact rape victims are regularly and systematically marginalised and pretend that there is a simple equivalence between a sign saying "I beleive the victim" and "I believe the accused".. well, I'm being charitable if I say they're misguided.

Until the verdict is delivered there is equivalence between both statements.

And someone again tries to gloss over the context of rape trials and rape victims, instead comfortable to pretend this case can be looked at independent of the environment it originated from.

Rape is not a crime that comes without massive baggage and that seems to leave a lot of people here in a very uncomfortable position.
The girl in the court case is alleging rape at present.  Until such times that the rugby players are convicted, she is not a rape victim.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 07:08:54 PM
Quote from: michaelg on February 10, 2018, 07:04:30 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 06:45:18 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 10, 2018, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 06:33:32 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:44:42 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:12:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 10, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o

Fair play. No need for faces.

Let the trial take it's course...I'd say same if the banner said 'don't believe her.'  was made by another fireside lawyer.

There is much more history with rape victims being treated with disbelief and less-than-subtle sexism - the idea of solidarity like that is to encourage victims to come forward; most rapes remain unreported.

The accused face no such hurdles. Drawing a straight line between the two sides misses the point.

encourage victims to come forward after the trial. Person with the banner no more knows his guilt or innocence than you do. Trial has a bit to go yet - is why jurors are told to listen to all the evidence before coming to  a decision

That's cute, but when the trial is over the hard part is done. The idea of solidarity is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting they do.

Guess what - we're not jurors, nor are those holding that flag.

those holding flag are idiots

Nope, but those that try to gloss over the fact rape victims are regularly and systematically marginalised and pretend that there is a simple equivalence between a sign saying "I beleive the victim" and "I believe the accused".. well, I'm being charitable if I say they're misguided.

Until the verdict is delivered there is equivalence between both statements.

And someone again tries to gloss over the context of rape trials and rape victims, instead comfortable to pretend this case can be looked at independent of the environment it originated from.

Rape is not a crime that comes without massive baggage and that seems to leave a lot of people here in a very uncomfortable position.
The girl in the court case is alleging rape at present.  Until such times that the rugby players are convicted, she is not a rape victim.

..hence the 'believe' part of the flag.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 10, 2018, 07:16:07 PM
Lets all go to next Ireland game wirh banners: 'I believe her' or 'I dont believe her'  Firesde lawyers
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 10, 2018, 07:18:28 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 07:16:07 PM
Lets all go to next Ireland game wirh banners: 'I believe her' or 'I dont believe her'  Firesde lawyers

Or how about a flag with 'Syferous believes her'
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 10, 2018, 07:39:52 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 10, 2018, 07:18:28 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 07:16:07 PM
Lets all go to next Ireland game wirh banners: 'I believe her' or 'I dont believe her'  Firesde lawyers

Or how about a flag with 'Syferous believes her'

  :D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 10, 2018, 10:46:45 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 10, 2018, 07:18:28 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 07:16:07 PM
Lets all go to next Ireland game wirh banners: 'I believe her' or 'I dont believe her'  Firesde lawyers

Or how about a flag with 'Syferous believes her'
Or "Syferus is a gobshite" That would be popular
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 10, 2018, 11:37:32 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 10, 2018, 10:46:45 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 10, 2018, 07:18:28 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 07:16:07 PM
Lets all go to next Ireland game wirh banners: 'I believe her' or 'I dont believe her'  Firesde lawyers

Or how about a flag with 'Syferous believes her'
Or "Syferus is a gobshite" That would be popular

Where can I pick one of those up
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 12, 2018, 10:54:31 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 10, 2018, 11:37:32 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 10, 2018, 10:46:45 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 10, 2018, 07:18:28 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 07:16:07 PM
Lets all go to next Ireland game wirh banners: 'I believe her' or 'I dont believe her'  Firesde lawyers

Or how about a flag with 'Syferous believes her'
Or "Syferus is a gobshite" That would be popular

Where can I pick one of those up

They're sold out.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 12, 2018, 11:38:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 10, 2018, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 10, 2018, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play

I'd imagine if a rugby player was having sex with someone who's 7 half stone (this is random, nothing to do with case) that it could lead to some pain, especially if you're drunk and up for some wild stuff

Pardon??!?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 12, 2018, 12:46:51 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 12, 2018, 11:38:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 10, 2018, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 10, 2018, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play

I'd imagine if a rugby player was having sex with someone who's 7 half stone (this is random, nothing to do with case) that it could lead to some pain, especially if you're drunk and up for some wild stuff

Pardon??!?!

Vaginal bruising and cuts rarely happens from unforced sex, if ever.  There are certain things happen in a woman's body when it is non consensual which contributes to the causing of the bruising.  Call a spade a spade I'm 17 stone and ain't ever happened before that I'm aware off. May be a bit graphic but I genuinely believe that the medical evidence will be the key piece that will convict.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 01:31:39 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 12, 2018, 12:46:51 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 12, 2018, 11:38:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 10, 2018, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 10, 2018, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play

I'd imagine if a rugby player was having sex with someone who's 7 half stone (this is random, nothing to do with case) that it could lead to some pain, especially if you're drunk and up for some wild stuff

Pardon??!?!

Vaginal bruising and cuts rarely happens from unforced sex, if ever.  There are certain things happen in a woman's body when it is non consensual which contributes to the causing of the bruising.  Call a spade a spade I'm 17 stone and ain't ever happened before that I'm aware off. May be a bit graphic but I genuinely believe that the medical evidence will be the key piece that will convict.

fat fecker  ;)

I did say I'd imagine it would.. I'm no Vaginal expert (never thought I'd put that in a post) so I'll go with your judgement/experience on it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 12, 2018, 01:40:03 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 01:31:39 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 12, 2018, 12:46:51 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 12, 2018, 11:38:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 10, 2018, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 10, 2018, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play

I'd imagine if a rugby player was having sex with someone who's 7 half stone (this is random, nothing to do with case) that it could lead to some pain, especially if you're drunk and up for some wild stuff

Pardon??!?!

Vaginal bruising and cuts rarely happens from unforced sex, if ever.  There are certain things happen in a woman's body when it is non consensual which contributes to the causing of the bruising.  Call a spade a spade I'm 17 stone and ain't ever happened before that I'm aware off. May be a bit graphic but I genuinely believe that the medical evidence will be the key piece that will convict.

fat fecker  ;)

I did say I'd imagine it would.. I'm no Vaginal expert (never thought I'd put that in a post) so I'll go with your judgement/experience on it

Big boned 😂
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 12, 2018, 01:53:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 12, 2018, 01:40:03 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 01:31:39 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 12, 2018, 12:46:51 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 12, 2018, 11:38:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 10, 2018, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 10, 2018, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 10, 2018, 05:05:00 PM
Tricolour at Ireland game today with "I believe her" on it.  :o
A gobshite making up his/her mind having heard one side. Just as well he/she isn't on the jury.
As for the alleged victim having some physical injury we can wait for the old "very vigorous sex" line to be brought into play

I'd imagine if a rugby player was having sex with someone who's 7 half stone (this is random, nothing to do with case) that it could lead to some pain, especially if you're drunk and up for some wild stuff

Pardon??!?!

Vaginal bruising and cuts rarely happens from unforced sex, if ever.  There are certain things happen in a woman's body when it is non consensual which contributes to the causing of the bruising.  Call a spade a spade I'm 17 stone and ain't ever happened before that I'm aware off. May be a bit graphic but I genuinely believe that the medical evidence will be the key piece that will convict.

fat fecker  ;)

I did say I'd imagine it would.. I'm no Vaginal expert (never thought I'd put that in a post) so I'll go with your judgement/experience on it

Big boned 😂

Must be big boned in the wrong areas  ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 12, 2018, 04:51:29 PM
McIlroy represented by Arthur Harvey I see. His version of events is that McIlroy entered the room fully clothed, she was naked on the bed with Jackson. No sign of Olding in the room. Mcilroy lay on the bed and kissed her, she masturbated him and briefly performed oral on him.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 04:52:37 PM
If those instagram photos are anything to go by she'd able for a rugby player.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2018, 05:41:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 04:52:37 PM
If those instagram photos are anything to go by she'd able for a rugby player.
MR busy on the PMs I'd say!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 12, 2018, 05:51:46 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 04:52:37 PM
If those instagram photos are anything to go by she'd able for a rugby player.

You're some joke of a man. Obsessed with how the woman looks or dresses. Why? Rape is rape is rape. Get that simple fact through your head and you might understand why the woman had so much support against people like you.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 06:18:06 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2018, 05:51:46 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 04:52:37 PM
If those instagram photos are anything to go by she'd able for a rugby player.

You're some joke of a man. Obsessed with how the woman looks or dresses. Why? Rape is rape is rape. Get that simple fact through your head and you might understand why the woman had so much support against people like you.

Jesus lad wind your neck in!! They are fake no doubt but like a proper fish you collect the bait!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 12, 2018, 07:23:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2018, 05:51:46 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 04:52:37 PM
If those instagram photos are anything to go by she'd able for a rugby player.

You're some joke of a man. Obsessed with how the woman looks or dresses. Why? Rape is rape is rape. Get that simple fact through your head and you might understand why the woman had so much support against people like you.

Hey fucksticks, An allegation has been made against people
They are entitled to defend themselves
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on February 12, 2018, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 04:52:37 PM
If those instagram photos are anything to go by she'd able for a rugby player.

You're like a gossiping aul woman
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 08:40:04 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on February 12, 2018, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 04:52:37 PM
If those instagram photos are anything to go by she'd able for a rugby player.

You're like a gossiping aul woman

Unless you've been on the moon, someone else has already said on this thread about photos. He's about 17 stone and supports Liverpool. I'll leave that with you
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on February 12, 2018, 08:45:19 PM
You'll have to point me out the post where someone who is "17 stone and supports Liverpool" said anything about her photos

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 08:49:48 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on February 12, 2018, 08:45:19 PM
You'll have to point me out the post where someone who is "17 stone and supports Liverpool" said anything about her photos

Look for it yourself, it's already been posted.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on February 12, 2018, 08:56:19 PM
Nah - you're ok - you can do it for me - the only person I see referencing photos of the accuser is yourself.

Funny how you were guessing her weight as well  ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 12, 2018, 09:28:05 PM
@FrankGreaney

6m

Blane McIlroy's barrister puts his client's version of events to the woman. He says he was fully dressed when he first came into the room and that she was naked on the bed with Paddy Jackson. He said there was no sign of Stuart Olding in the room

.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2018, 09:53:20 PM
Her testimony seems a lot less convincing today.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 12, 2018, 10:45:03 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2018, 09:53:20 PM
Her testimony seems a lot less convincing today.

How? Her story hasn't changed at all.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 12, 2018, 10:48:48 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2018, 09:53:20 PM
Her testimony seems a lot less convincing today.
Harvey sounds a much better barrister than the previous ones who were questioning the girl and has really gone on the attack.

You'd have to say there's something seriously wrong with a system that allows an alleged victim to be publicly grilled and accused for 7 days and counting. For all the furore and wailing about the Evans case (a special case because the girl had no recollection) by various women's rights groups, this case is a much more horrific example and deterrent to others to come forward.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: red hander on February 12, 2018, 10:56:35 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 12, 2018, 10:48:48 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2018, 09:53:20 PM
Her testimony seems a lot less convincing today.
Harvey sounds a much better barrister than the previous ones who were questioning the girl and has really gone on the attack.

You'd have to say there's something seriously wrong with a system that allows an alleged victim to be publicly grilled and accused for 7 days and counting. For all the furore and wailing about the Evans case (a special case because the girl had no recollection) by various women's rights groups, this case is a much more horrific example and deterrent to others to come forward.

This will depend on the verdict, IMO. It's high stakes for both sides so both sides are gonna go all out
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 12, 2018, 11:31:58 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 12, 2018, 10:45:03 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2018, 09:53:20 PM
Her testimony seems a lot less convincing today.

How? Her story hasn't changed at all.
Precisely. And the prosecution are playing a dangerous game here. By alleging that the complainant was "intoxicated" they are seriously undermining their clients' claims to have have had a reasonable belief that there was consent.

Today, was the prosecution QC alleging that the words "at least use a condom" amounts to consent?

Because it doesn't.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 12, 2018, 11:34:47 PM
Is it any wonder most instances of rape go unreported? This is a broken system.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 11:42:25 PM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 12, 2018, 11:54:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 11:42:25 PM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment

At what point of people telling you you're acting scummy will you get the message?

If you think a system that allows a woman's underwear be paraded around a court room amid a two week long grilling with countless baseless insinuations about her sexual desires and motivations is a good judicial system you are in a single world wrong.

Surely to fûck there should be a time limit on cross examination, because what is currently happening is simply an attempt akin to filibustering in politics where the aim is to wear down the victim and get a reaction that makes her look bad. That is not justice.

What the defence have attempted is not a defence of their client but a smear campaign against the victim. I hope to God the jurors are smart enough to see through the noise.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2018, 11:57:21 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2018, 11:54:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 11:42:25 PM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment

At what point of people telling you you're acting scummy will you get the message?

If you think a system that allows a woman's underwear be paraded around a court room asks a two week long grilling with countless baseless insinuations about her sexual desires and motivations is a good judicial system you are in a single world wrong.

What the defence have attempted is not a defence of their client but a smear campaign against the victim. I hope to God the jurors are smart enough to see through the noise.
LOL what a clown. I honestly don't think you live in the real world. It's called a defence for a reason - do you expect them to hold out their hands and ask for the cuffs to be applied?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 12:02:05 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2018, 11:57:21 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2018, 11:54:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 11:42:25 PM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment

At what point of people telling you you're acting scummy will you get the message?

If you think a system that allows a woman's underwear be paraded around a court room asks a two week long grilling with countless baseless insinuations about her sexual desires and motivations is a good judicial system you are in a single world wrong.

What the defence have attempted is not a defence of their client but a smear campaign against the victim. I hope to God the jurors are smart enough to see through the noise.
LOL what a clown. I honestly don't think you live in the real world. It's called a defence for a reason - do you expect them to hold out their hands and ask for the cuffs to be applied?!

A defence where all there is insinuations and attempts to feed into the worst side of humans (highlighted in this thread alone, nevermind in court) to assume the woman was 'up for it' is not justice or a defence in any shape or form. Once the woman says no it becomes rape, no matter what did or didn't happen before. It is that simple.

Anyone who isn't looking at this trying to jump through hoops looking for reasons to get the defendants off can see this is a brutal, broken system.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 13, 2018, 12:08:30 AM
It's dog eat dog when you're looking down the barrel of 8-10 years in the slammer. The defence team are getting paid handsomely to sow the seeds of reasonable doubt. You seem to think an accusation of rape is enough to send people to jail.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on February 13, 2018, 12:16:47 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2018, 11:54:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 11:42:25 PM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment

At what point of people telling you you're acting scummy will you get the message?

If you think a system that allows a woman's underwear be paraded around a court room amid a two week long grilling with countless baseless insinuations about her sexual desires and motivations is a good judicial system you are in a single world wrong.

Surely to fûck there should be a time limit on cross examination, because what is currently happening is simply an attempt akin to filibuster in politics where the aim is to wear down the victim and get a reaction that makes her look bad. That is not justice.

What the defence have attempted is not a defence of their client but a smear campaign against the victim. I hope to God the jurors are smart enough to see through the noise.

I have to say I agree with Syferus on this. The sooner the better the case moves onto the physical evidence and the communication afterwards between the accused. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 07:16:36 AM
The system is a disgrace.

Anyway, regarding the rest of the case..........

If the police did their jobs properly and the men are lying there should be plenty of inconsistencies between what they said at the time of questioning and what they are saying in court, unless they all refused to say anything when initially questioned. Given how casual they sounded in the WhatsApp messages, they hardly had their stories straight at that stage. If they gave the same version of events that they are giving in court and if each defendant's version was consistent with the other that would lead me to believe they are telling the truth. If they were inconsistent or refused to respond to initial questioning I'd be thinking they were guilty but will we even find this out? From what I've read the prosecution can't call the defendants to give evidence, which seems totally wrong when you see what the girl has been subjected to?

Maybe someone with a knowledge of the  legal system could explain what we'll find out in relation to each defendant's version of events when initially arrested and questioned.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 13, 2018, 07:40:01 AM
Court cases are adversarial. That is how they work.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on February 13, 2018, 07:47:20 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 11:42:25 PM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment

Now far from being on shferus's side but in what world where someone reports rape and has to have their underwear paraded in front of a public court is there not something seriously wrong?

Yes those boys deserve a fair trial but so does she.

The perception of women is still very flawed... Man sleeps with many women and he's a hero. Woman does this and is a tr**p.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 08:01:39 AM
I'm not going to relate to this case, as no matter what I say I've defended the rugby players every time in Syferus's eyes! For the record if you look at any of my posts I haven't, I've consistently said if they are guilty they should be put away for the maximum time!

Now if someone accuses you of doing something surely you have the right to defend yourself? Is it then not up to the accuser to prove that that person did it? And also up to to the defence to prove innocents?
Physical, witnesss, and DNA evidence will prove most cases nowadays...

One persons word over another is different altogether I'd assume.. this is what the problem is in most rape cases I think..

Some posters need to wise up and except that the judicial system is there for a reason, put in place by people who have actually thought it out logically, it may be flawed in some people's eyes but that's it!

As for defendants not talking at interviews, standard practice.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on February 13, 2018, 08:55:10 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2018, 11:57:21 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2018, 11:54:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 11:42:25 PM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment

At what point of people telling you you're acting scummy will you get the message?

If you think a system that allows a woman's underwear be paraded around a court room asks a two week long grilling with countless baseless insinuations about her sexual desires and motivations is a good judicial system you are in a single world wrong.

What the defence have attempted is not a defence of their client but a smear campaign against the victim. I hope to God the jurors are smart enough to see through the noise.
LOL what a clown. I honestly don't think you live in the real world. It's called a defence for a reason - do you expect them to hold out their hands and ask for the cuffs to be applied?!

I don't know what the answer is, as people have the right to defend themselves.  However, there is no doubt that the reports on this trial and of the treatment of this woman would make any potential complainant think twice about following through on a complaint.

/Jim.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 13, 2018, 09:42:38 AM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on February 13, 2018, 08:55:10 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2018, 11:57:21 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2018, 11:54:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 12, 2018, 11:42:25 PM
why do we have a judicial system? Complete waste of money! All things should be settled by the Board! Fireside lawyers by the dozen!

Can we put a poll up? At least that will give us an idea and close the case! Save that girl from 3 weeks of torment

At what point of people telling you you're acting scummy will you get the message?

If you think a system that allows a woman's underwear be paraded around a court room asks a two week long grilling with countless baseless insinuations about her sexual desires and motivations is a good judicial system you are in a single world wrong.

What the defence have attempted is not a defence of their client but a smear campaign against the victim. I hope to God the jurors are smart enough to see through the noise.
LOL what a clown. I honestly don't think you live in the real world. It's called a defence for a reason - do you expect them to hold out their hands and ask for the cuffs to be applied?!

I don't know what the answer is, as people have the right to defend themselves.  However, there is no doubt that the reports on this trial and of the treatment of this woman would make any potential complainant think twice about following through on a complaint.

/Jim.

a minimum of 7 days cross examination of a complainant wont encourage many victims forward again
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 13, 2018, 09:46:05 AM
Maybe because there is more than one individual accused it seems a lot more traumatic for the alleged victim having to answer to 3 or 4 different QCs. From what I have read so far the girl has been remarkable
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 13, 2018, 09:59:59 AM
Quote from: general_lee on February 13, 2018, 09:46:05 AM
Maybe because there is more than one individual accused it seems a lot more traumatic for the alleged victim having to answer to 3 or 4 different QCs. From what I have read so far the girl has been remarkable

Yes, that seems to be the case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 10:10:43 AM
With 4 defendants and the prosecution barrister there was always going to be a lengthy period of cross examination.  It may seem harsh and complainant unfriendly but it is the system. The thing is now the only way the defendants will be pushed themselves is if they put themselves into the box. I think given how well she has done and other evidence in terms of medicals and WhatsApp messages I think they will have to and there will be a chance of it unraveling depending on what they have or have not said in their interviews.

We live in a society where you are presumed innocent until you are proven otherwise. That is not a qualified presumption. You can't be any more or less innocent because you are an international rugby player from a well to do background or a drug taking homeless man with a record living in a card board box.  Everyone has the same presumption of innocence. As a consequence you have the same right to face your accuser and challenge them. You have the right to challenge their allegations. Take the nature of this crime out and make it an attempted murder trial. You cannot have one set of rules in terms of cross examination for one type of crime and a different for another. You need uniformity because as soon as you start making exceptions the clever lawyers use these as wriggle room tactics and create doubt where no doubt is really there. I do believe in the case of all sexual crimes their should be full anonymity till conviction but I understand the concept that not only should the law do right but it should be seen to be done right therefore this causes issues. I believe that there should at least be the option to remain anonymous though.

This case will go to the wire. There are too many variables and withbthe 4 QC who are involved, and I know how they operate as I have worked with 3 of them regularly over the years, this is only going to get tougher for the accuser. If she is telling the truth the. The truth will out and as Jesus (and Jim Carrey ) said the truth shall set her free!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 10:27:45 AM
BC, do you think they are labouring the 'drunk' and hazy stuff, making the girl continually say she wasn't out of it, so that they can present some sort of evidence that implies consent later on. They'd not have to worry about drunk consent is no consent then.

She is being treated horrifically though, I don't know why anyone would report a rape to the police if this is how they are treated at trial. If I was her father, I think I'd be more inclined to visit these lads privately than put her through this.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 10:34:06 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 10:27:45 AM
BC, do you think they are labouring the 'drunk' and hazy stuff, making the girl continually say she wasn't out of it, so that they can present some sort of evidence that implies consent later on. They'd not have to worry about drunk consent is no consent then.

She is being treated horrifically though, I don't know why anyone would report a rape to the police if this is how they are treated at trial. If I was her father, I think I'd be more inclined to visit these lads privately than put her through this.

Assuming they are guilty?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on February 13, 2018, 10:44:52 AM
You have to emphasise with both parties to proceedings reach their conclusion. The Girl is going through a serious ordeal but so are the accused if they are innocent. Professional Careers in taters and reputations tainted for life. Rape victims are fully briefed and prepared for what lies in front of them and the function of cross examination is to establish the truth which is what the innocent party wants anyway.  I must say this whole thing is got an OJ Simpson feel to it, the big media presence, the "did they do it or is she a rugger groupie" kinda theme.
I think things are getting a bit out of hand on here when the girls private parts are coming into the debate. That's my 2 cents 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 10:47:14 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 10:27:45 AM
BC, do you think they are labouring the 'drunk' and hazy stuff, making the girl continually say she wasn't out of it, so that they can present some sort of evidence that implies consent later on. They'd not have to worry about drunk consent is no consent then.

She is being treated horrifically though, I don't know why anyone would report a rape to the police if this is how they are treated at trial. If I was her father, I think I'd be more inclined to visit these lads privately than put her through this.

They will only have anecdotal evidence I would imagine that she was drunk. She would not have been submitted to a blood test at the time and in any event she went to the doctors a good bitbafter the incident so it would all be circumstantial. They are simply trying to paint a picture of a drunk, flirty girl who gave as good as she got and was a very willing participant, if not the instigator of it all. Classic defence tactics. If she is telling the truth, which I personally think she is, then she would not have had many inconsistencies, which she hasn't. The defence are pushing her to try to get her crack and open a door to a major inconsistency. Hasn't happened and she has tonbe admires for that and this is why my gut feeling is that she is telling the truth.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 10:10:43 AM
With 4 defendants and the prosecution barrister there was always going to be a lengthy period of cross examination.  It may seem harsh and complainant unfriendly but it is the system. The thing is now the only way the defendants will be pushed themselves is if they put themselves into the box. I think given how well she has done and other evidence in terms of medicals and WhatsApp messages I think they will have to and there will be a chance of it unraveling depending on what they have or have not said in their interviews.

We live in a society where you are presumed innocent until you are proven otherwise. That is not a qualified presumption. You can't be any more or less innocent because you are an international rugby player from a well to do background or a drug taking homeless man with a record living in a card board box.  Everyone has the same presumption of innocence. As a consequence you have the same right to face your accuser and challenge them. You have the right to challenge their allegations. Take the nature of this crime out and make it an attempted murder trial. You cannot have one set of rules in terms of cross examination for one type of crime and a different for another. You need uniformity because as soon as you start making exceptions the clever lawyers use these as wriggle room tactics and create doubt where no doubt is really there. I do believe in the case of all sexual crimes their should be full anonymity till conviction but I understand the concept that not only should the law do right but it should be seen to be done right therefore this causes issues. I believe that there should at least be the option to remain anonymous though.

This case will go to the wire. There are too many variables and withbthe 4 QC who are involved, and I know how they operate as I have worked with 3 of them regularly over the years, this is only going to get tougher for the accuser. If she is telling the truth the. The truth will out and as Jesus (and Jim Carrey ) said the truth shall set her free!
BC is it therefore possible that the defendants could have given totally different explanations to police when interviewed, to the versions their barristers are now quoting when questioning the girl and this will not come to light unless they take the stand?

It seems most unfair to me that the defendants can choose whether or not to take the stand and if they don't it renders key evidence inadmissible, if I'm understanding it correctly. What is the legal reasoning for this?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 13, 2018, 10:56:24 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 10:10:43 AM
With 4 defendants and the prosecution barrister there was always going to be a lengthy period of cross examination.  It may seem harsh and complainant unfriendly but it is the system. The thing is now the only way the defendants will be pushed themselves is if they put themselves into the box. I think given how well she has done and other evidence in terms of medicals and WhatsApp messages I think they will have to and there will be a chance of it unraveling depending on what they have or have not said in their interviews.

We live in a society where you are presumed innocent until you are proven otherwise. That is not a qualified presumption. You can't be any more or less innocent because you are an international rugby player from a well to do background or a drug taking homeless man with a record living in a card board box.  Everyone has the same presumption of innocence. As a consequence you have the same right to face your accuser and challenge them. You have the right to challenge their allegations. Take the nature of this crime out and make it an attempted murder trial. You cannot have one set of rules in terms of cross examination for one type of crime and a different for another. You need uniformity because as soon as you start making exceptions the clever lawyers use these as wriggle room tactics and create doubt where no doubt is really there. I do believe in the case of all sexual crimes their should be full anonymity till conviction but I understand the concept that not only should the law do right but it should be seen to be done right therefore this causes issues. I believe that there should at least be the option to remain anonymous though.

This case will go to the wire. There are too many variables and withbthe 4 QC who are involved, and I know how they operate as I have worked with 3 of them regularly over the years, this is only going to get tougher for the accuser. If she is telling the truth the. The truth will out and as Jesus (and Jim Carrey ) said the truth shall set her free!

The defence will make an application to stop this going to the jury on the basis of irregularities in evidence, alcohol etc. But if that doesnt succeed we will see the accused in the witness box giving their version. They will be well prepared for this
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 10:59:26 AM
She's back in the witness box today, her eighth day. Being re-examine by prosecution.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 11:05:01 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 10:34:06 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 10:27:45 AM
BC, do you think they are labouring the 'drunk' and hazy stuff, making the girl continually say she wasn't out of it, so that they can present some sort of evidence that implies consent later on. They'd not have to worry about drunk consent is no consent then.

She is being treated horrifically though, I don't know why anyone would report a rape to the police if this is how they are treated at trial. If I was her father, I think I'd be more inclined to visit these lads privately than put her through this.

Assuming they are guilty?

That's the worry. If you know that a rape trial involves 7 days of humiliating testimony, cross examination and stress and upset for the victim, it must be tempting to spare yourself that.

If you know that an attack has happened, and you feel the justice system is not protecting and caring for you or your daughter, you must be tempted to do something else.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:08:01 AM
Very true AZ. It's been a 2 week advertisement for vigilante justice so far.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 10:10:43 AM
With 4 defendants and the prosecution barrister there was always going to be a lengthy period of cross examination.  It may seem harsh and complainant unfriendly but it is the system. The thing is now the only way the defendants will be pushed themselves is if they put themselves into the box. I think given how well she has done and other evidence in terms of medicals and WhatsApp messages I think they will have to and there will be a chance of it unraveling depending on what they have or have not said in their interviews.

We live in a society where you are presumed innocent until you are proven otherwise. That is not a qualified presumption. You can't be any more or less innocent because you are an international rugby player from a well to do background or a drug taking homeless man with a record living in a card board box.  Everyone has the same presumption of innocence. As a consequence you have the same right to face your accuser and challenge them. You have the right to challenge their allegations. Take the nature of this crime out and make it an attempted murder trial. You cannot have one set of rules in terms of cross examination for one type of crime and a different for another. You need uniformity because as soon as you start making exceptions the clever lawyers use these as wriggle room tactics and create doubt where no doubt is really there. I do believe in the case of all sexual crimes their should be full anonymity till conviction but I understand the concept that not only should the law do right but it should be seen to be done right therefore this causes issues. I believe that there should at least be the option to remain anonymous though.

This case will go to the wire. There are too many variables and withbthe 4 QC who are involved, and I know how they operate as I have worked with 3 of them regularly over the years, this is only going to get tougher for the accuser. If she is telling the truth the. The truth will out and as Jesus (and Jim Carrey ) said the truth shall set her free!
BC is it therefore possible that the defendants could have given totally different explanations to police when interviewed, to the versions their barristers are now quoting when questioning the girl and this will not come to light unless they take the stand?

It seems most unfair to me that the defendants can choose whether or not to take the stand and if they don't it renders key evidence inadmissible, if I'm understanding it correctly. What is the legal reasoning for this?

Possible but highly unlikely. They would have done one of two things in the policie station. They would have had a no comment interview with maybe a short preprepared statement along the lines of 'i fully deny all charges etc etc and am exercising my right to silence' or they went into detail about their side of events and painted a picture of a willing party girl who consented to what happened. It's hard to tell what may have happened but I would err on the side of the first course of action given the Solicitors involved as the worst that can happen is inferences can be drawn from silence but if you have denied the charge then it's up to the prosecution to prove it.

The legal reasoning is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. You are presumed to be innocent and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove otherwise. Its an adversarial system and it's their responsibility to prove you guilty not your responsibility to prove your innocence. Given the level of miscarriages of Justice over the years through false confessions etc it amazes me that people actually would push for people to be put in a position where they can self incriminate themselves. This is not a fact finding mission unfortunately, this is justice and seeing that justice is done. Justice works on the presumption of innocence and while that is the bedrock of the legal system a defendant will never be compelled to give evidence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on February 13, 2018, 11:26:39 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:08:01 AM
Very true AZ. It's been a 2 week advertisement for vigilante justice so far.

The paedo hunters will be branching out if they read this
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:30:20 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 10:10:43 AM
With 4 defendants and the prosecution barrister there was always going to be a lengthy period of cross examination.  It may seem harsh and complainant unfriendly but it is the system. The thing is now the only way the defendants will be pushed themselves is if they put themselves into the box. I think given how well she has done and other evidence in terms of medicals and WhatsApp messages I think they will have to and there will be a chance of it unraveling depending on what they have or have not said in their interviews.

We live in a society where you are presumed innocent until you are proven otherwise. That is not a qualified presumption. You can't be any more or less innocent because you are an international rugby player from a well to do background or a drug taking homeless man with a record living in a card board box.  Everyone has the same presumption of innocence. As a consequence you have the same right to face your accuser and challenge them. You have the right to challenge their allegations. Take the nature of this crime out and make it an attempted murder trial. You cannot have one set of rules in terms of cross examination for one type of crime and a different for another. You need uniformity because as soon as you start making exceptions the clever lawyers use these as wriggle room tactics and create doubt where no doubt is really there. I do believe in the case of all sexual crimes their should be full anonymity till conviction but I understand the concept that not only should the law do right but it should be seen to be done right therefore this causes issues. I believe that there should at least be the option to remain anonymous though.

This case will go to the wire. There are too many variables and withbthe 4 QC who are involved, and I know how they operate as I have worked with 3 of them regularly over the years, this is only going to get tougher for the accuser. If she is telling the truth the. The truth will out and as Jesus (and Jim Carrey ) said the truth shall set her free!
BC is it therefore possible that the defendants could have given totally different explanations to police when interviewed, to the versions their barristers are now quoting when questioning the girl and this will not come to light unless they take the stand?

It seems most unfair to me that the defendants can choose whether or not to take the stand and if they don't it renders key evidence inadmissible, if I'm understanding it correctly. What is the legal reasoning for this?

Possible but highly unlikely. They would have done one of two things in the policie station. They would have had a no comment interview with maybe a short preprepared statement along the lines of 'i fully deny all charges etc etc and am exercising my right to silence' or they went into detail about their side of events and painted a picture of a willing party girl who consented to what happened. It's hard to tell what may have happened but I would err on the side of the first course of action given the Solicitors involved as the worst that can happen is inferences can be drawn from silence but if you have denied the charge then it's up to the prosecution to prove it.

The legal reasoning is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. You are presumed to be innocent and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove otherwise. Its an adversarial system and it's their responsibility to prove you guilty not your responsibility to prove your innocence. Given the level of miscarriages of Justice over the years through false confessions etc it amazes me that people actually would push for people to be put in a position where they can self incriminate themselves. This is not a fact finding mission unfortunately, this is justice and seeing that justice is done. Justice works on the presumption of innocence and while that is the bedrock of the legal system a defendant will never be compelled to give evidence.
Like most on here I'm an ignoramus when it comes to the nuances of the justice system but it would seem to me that a video recorded interview taken at the point of initial arrest where defendants are expected to answer questions about the case openly and honestly(and where silence would indeed raise serious questions about whether they have something to hide) doesn't lend itself to miscarriages of justice like the old signed confessions used to. The girl has been open and consistent from the start. If the lads were telling the truth there should be no need for silence until they have a chance to confer and get their story straight.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:34:43 AM
It doesn't look like justice to an eejit like me. It looks like legal trickery and finding loopholes to avoid the real truth being got at.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 11:57:22 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:34:43 AM
It doesn't look like justice to an eejit like me. It looks like legal trickery and finding loopholes to avoid the real truth being got at.

I think that is the legal system in a nutshell.  By virtue of the fact that we have an adversarial system, and defence tactics resolve around trying to plant reasonable doubt, it leads to a lot of smoke screens, confusion and obfuscation in a bid to make the jury think something doesn't sit well with them. Prosecution try to remove all that and get them to focus on the clear evidence they believe.

I think that system, barring cases where there is very clear forensic or visual evidence, leads to this sort of trial, and it must be very frustrating to be caught up in it.

Look at the OJ Simpson trial for example. Brought to its knees because the defence managed to make it about race and Mark Furman.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Denn Forever on February 13, 2018, 12:04:05 PM
Ireland's Chet evans?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 12:08:09 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:34:43 AM
It doesn't look like justice to an eejit like me. It looks like legal trickery and finding loopholes to avoid the real truth being got at.

Should just raise the Chewbacca Defence

(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/criticalthinking-12532859330897-phpapp02/95/critical-thinking-win-every-argument-every-time-35-728.jpg?cb=1253268048)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 12:09:00 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:34:43 AM
It doesn't look like justice to an eejit like me. It looks like legal trickery and finding loopholes to avoid the real truth being got at.

Not giving information at an interview is good advice, their recollection of the night will be hazy due to being drunk, so the smart thing would be to collect your thoughts on the matter and then give a more accurate response to the questions.

They must have shit themselves when the police came to question them... the girl has also been coached on how to answer the questions in court and the lads will also. I would imagine thats the norm but it does not mean they are guilty.

This does not mean I believe they are innocent Syferus and others who do think they are guilty..

As for the loopholes, lawyers will always look at that as a means to get their client off the hook.. there has to be good evidence rather than his word against mine, if 4 or 5 people give the same story and one person has theirs then unless you can prove that story to be wrong who do you believe?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 12:28:19 PM
I think there's a clear difference between loopholes and testing the veracity of the evidence. It's often said that the worst thing that can be done in the criminal justice system is to convict an innonence person. In order to prevent that from happening lawyers will be trained to test the evidence to its fullest. Judges are there in crown court cases to have the final word and prevent any sort of smoke or mirrors being applied. Cross examination questions must be relevant to the pertinent issues in the case. I think it's a massive disservice to the fine men and women on all sides who work hard to ensure that we have one of the finest criminal justice systems in the world.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 12:31:12 PM
I should also add that we are analysing days and days of evidence in this case based on a few paragraphs of coverage of what individual journalists thought were the key questions and answers. That's a dangerous thing to do. The reports may or may not be accurate and will certainly be subject to the interpretation that the writer amhas tried to put on them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hardy on February 13, 2018, 12:51:54 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 11:16:54 AM... it amazes me that people actually would push for people to be put in a position where they can self incriminate themselves. This is not a fact finding mission unfortunately, this is justice and seeing that justice is done. Justice works on the presumption of innocence and while that is the bedrock of the legal system a defendant will never be compelled to give evidence.

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:30:20 AM
... silence would indeed raise serious questions about whether they have something to hide ...

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 12:09:00 PM
Not giving information at an interview is good advice ...

This does not mean I believe they are innocent Syferus and others who do think they are guilty..

NEVER talk to the police (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Ty4Sam on February 13, 2018, 01:02:43 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 12:31:12 PM
I should also add that we are analysing days and days of evidence in this case based on a few paragraphs of coverage of what individual journalists thought were the key questions and answers. That's a dangerous thing to do. The reports may or may not be accurate and will certainly be subject to the interpretation that the writer amhas tried to put on them.

Nail on head here David. A quick search of this case on twitter throws up some on most sweeping generalisations you could encounter.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 13, 2018, 01:05:04 PM
Can we get a show of hands for who on this thread works in the legal profession so I can make an informed judgement on the shite/non-shite they are posting. Syferus, no need to respond. David McKeown your credentials are verified.

Being from Cross' I'm guessing BC1's experience is as defendant  :P
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on February 13, 2018, 01:12:01 PM
Is anyone else uncomfortable reading the grilling that girl is getting today? I know the defence have to ask questions but it seems a very aggressive line today. I dont know how people work as barristers, dont think I could prey on a poor unfortunate person like they do. Smacks of deperation to me from the defence as the risk the girl now getting sympathy for the attack from jurors.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 13, 2018, 01:16:49 PM
Quote from: Itchy on February 13, 2018, 01:12:01 PM
Is anyone else uncomfortable reading the grilling that girl is getting today? I know the defence have to ask questions but it seems a very aggressive line today. I dont know how people work as barristers, dont think I could prey on a poor unfortunate person like they do. Smacks of deperation to me from the defence as the risk the girl now getting sympathy for the attack from jurors.

That was the prosecuting barrister who's on her side!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 01:20:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 12:09:00 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:34:43 AM
It doesn't look like justice to an eejit like me. It looks like legal trickery and finding loopholes to avoid the real truth being got at.

Not giving information at an interview is good advice, their recollection of the night will be hazy due to being drunk, so the smart thing would be to collect your thoughts on the matter and then give a more accurate response to the questions.

They must have shit themselves when the police came to question them... the girl has also been coached on how to answer the questions in court and the lads will also. I would imagine thats the norm but it does not mean they are guilty.

This does not mean I believe they are innocent Syferus and others who do think they are guilty..

As for the loopholes, lawyers will always look at that as a means to get their client off the hook.. there has to be good evidence rather than his word against mine, if 4 or 5 people give the same story and one person has theirs then unless you can prove that story to be wrong who do you believe?
Well if everyone had to rely on their version of events as given in the original interview surely that would unearth the truth in a case like this. If 4 people give the same version of events before they've had a chance to work out their story you'd have to believe them. The technology is there to make sure all questioning is done in a fair and transparent way.

If they're allowed months to confer and go over their stories with their legal teams it negates that. I don't see why the 4 should be believed over the 1 under the current system.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 13, 2018, 01:20:08 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 13, 2018, 01:16:49 PM
Quote from: Itchy on February 13, 2018, 01:12:01 PM
Is anyone else uncomfortable reading the grilling that girl is getting today? I know the defence have to ask questions but it seems a very aggressive line today. I dont know how people work as barristers, dont think I could prey on a poor unfortunate person like they do. Smacks of deperation to me from the defence as the risk the girl now getting sympathy for the attack from jurors.

That was the prosecuting barrister who's on her side!!

The levels of stupidity must surely have bottomed out at this stage!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 01:22:37 PM
Quote from: Hardy on February 13, 2018, 12:51:54 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 11:16:54 AM... it amazes me that people actually would push for people to be put in a position where they can self incriminate themselves. This is not a fact finding mission unfortunately, this is justice and seeing that justice is done. Justice works on the presumption of innocence and while that is the bedrock of the legal system a defendant will never be compelled to give evidence.

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:30:20 AM
... silence would indeed raise serious questions about whether they have something to hide ...

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 12:09:00 PM
Not giving information at an interview is good advice ...

This does not mean I believe they are innocent Syferus and others who do think they are guilty..

NEVER talk to the police (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)
I've no doubt that going no comment is the best course of action for anyone accused of anything under the current system.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 01:29:41 PM
I see Jackson story is he didn't have penetrative sex with the girl and just used his hand - surely this would be easy to prove if the normal procedures where followed when she reported rape in the next few days?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 13, 2018, 01:38:11 PM
Quote from: Hardy on February 13, 2018, 12:51:54 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 11:16:54 AM... it amazes me that people actually would push for people to be put in a position where they can self incriminate themselves. This is not a fact finding mission unfortunately, this is justice and seeing that justice is done. Justice works on the presumption of innocence and while that is the bedrock of the legal system a defendant will never be compelled to give evidence.

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:30:20 AM
... silence would indeed raise serious questions about whether they have something to hide ...

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 12:09:00 PM
Not giving information at an interview is good advice ...

This does not mean I believe they are innocent Syferus and others who do think they are guilty..

NEVER talk to the police (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

Bullshit comment.
So if the police arrest you and question regarding a crime at a certain location and time you say nothing. Despite the fact that you were in a location 100 miles away at the time and there are witnesses and CCTV to support your story.
You deserve to be kept in custody for that type of stupidity
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 13, 2018, 01:43:24 PM
Quote from: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 01:29:41 PM
I see Jackson story is he didn't have penetrative sex with the girl and just used his hand - surely this would be easy to prove if the normal procedures where followed when she reported rape in the next few days?
Not necessarily easy to prove.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 01:46:11 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 01:22:37 PM
Quote from: Hardy on February 13, 2018, 12:51:54 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 11:16:54 AM... it amazes me that people actually would push for people to be put in a position where they can self incriminate themselves. This is not a fact finding mission unfortunately, this is justice and seeing that justice is done. Justice works on the presumption of innocence and while that is the bedrock of the legal system a defendant will never be compelled to give evidence.

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:30:20 AM
... silence would indeed raise serious questions about whether they have something to hide ...

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 12:09:00 PM
Not giving information at an interview is good advice ...

This does not mean I believe they are innocent Syferus and others who do think they are guilty..

NEVER talk to the police (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)
I've no doubt that going no comment is the best course of action for anyone accused of anything under the current system.

I would strongly disagree. The right to silence has been greatly eroded over recent years and the level of inference that can be properly drawn has increased dramatically. There are plenty of times when no comment is still the best option but there's at least as many if not more when it is not.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 13, 2018, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 01:29:41 PM
I see Jackson story is he didn't have penetrative sex with the girl and just used his hand - surely this would be easy to prove if the normal procedures where followed when she reported rape in the next few days?

Presumably the argument is, the internal injuries as previously reported and discussed - they are easier caused to a finger/nail than what we all originally thought.

Strange twist today, I had assumed there was no question in Jackson having sexual intercourse....I am told some of the other ladies in the house that night are also up - I think we'll get some more clarity later.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 13, 2018, 02:17:18 PM
McIlroy's lawyer said his client was fully clothed when hevwent intl to the room. The lady says he was buck naked. I wonder if anyone else saw him so we can get a definitive answer.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 13, 2018, 02:25:21 PM
Frank Greaney

@FrankGreaney

·

1h

Witness tells court she didn't know complainant before party. She said she had a brief conversation with her. She said she thought she was "quite nice" and "didn't think she was quite drunk"



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"





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"

Hmmn
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Link on February 13, 2018, 02:25:55 PM
Quote from: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 01:29:41 PM
I see Jackson story is he didn't have penetrative sex with the girl and just used his hand - surely this would be easy to prove if the normal procedures where followed when she reported rape in the next few days?

Did i miss something?

I thought the report today was that he denied that anything happened when speaking to a 3rd girl who was interviewed today. i.e. not the accuser or the woman who opened the door to the room.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 02:30:08 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 01:46:11 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 01:22:37 PM
[
I've no doubt that going no comment is the best course of action for anyone accused of anything under the current system.

I would strongly disagree. The right to silence has been greatly eroded over recent years and the level of inference that can be properly drawn has increased dramatically. There are plenty of times when no comment is still the best option but there's at least as many if not more when it is not.
I made a sweeping statement that was pretty dumb.

I think silence should be viewed as suspicious in this case if it turns out that the men went no comment.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 02:38:36 PM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on February 13, 2018, 01:02:43 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 12:31:12 PM
I should also add that we are analysing days and days of evidence in this case based on a few paragraphs of coverage of what individual journalists thought were the key questions and answers. That's a dangerous thing to do. The reports may or may not be accurate and will certainly be subject to the interpretation that the writer amhas tried to put on them.

Nail on head here David. A quick search of this case on twitter throws up some on most sweeping generalisations you could encounter.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're not informed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed."

Lads, this isn't Soviet Russia and the court case is being reported by multiple outlets with little to no discrepancies that I'm aware of. This idea of news reports being untrustworthy has leaked into this thread a few times with a bunch of head-nodding like the above greeting it, yet the salient point of the reporting being quite accurate seems to not be made as vociferously. I wonder why?

Looks like the witness was a total damp squib for the folks hoping it would get the frat boys off the hook - what will the next thing they latch onto be? Not looking good for them..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hardy on February 13, 2018, 02:44:11 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 13, 2018, 01:38:11 PM
Quote from: Hardy on February 13, 2018, 12:51:54 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 11:16:54 AM... it amazes me that people actually would push for people to be put in a position where they can self incriminate themselves. This is not a fact finding mission unfortunately, this is justice and seeing that justice is done. Justice works on the presumption of innocence and while that is the bedrock of the legal system a defendant will never be compelled to give evidence.

Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 11:30:20 AM
... silence would indeed raise serious questions about whether they have something to hide ...

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 12:09:00 PM
Not giving information at an interview is good advice ...

This does not mean I believe they are innocent Syferus and others who do think they are guilty..

NEVER talk to the police (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

Bullshit comment.
So if the police arrest you and question regarding a crime at a certain location and time you say nothing. Despite the fact that you were in a location 100 miles away at the time and there are witnesses and CCTV to support your story.
You deserve to be kept in custody for that type of stupidity

Watch the video and repeat that comment.

People mistakenly believe the role of the prosecutor is to secure justice. It is not. It is to secure convictions. People can be falsely convicted in circumstances similar to those you describe. For example (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=21m13s).

And, by the way, why not try to be a little less uncouth in your contributions here?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 02:49:24 PM
Most of what is reported are direct transcripts of what was said which wouldn't seem to leave much room for inaccuracy or interpretation though obviously we're not told every word that was said either.

I thought the underwear being shown to the court was under-reported. I only saw it on Frank Greaney's twitter feed. Can't see any justification for it. Humiliating and irrelevant , assuming it's true of course.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 03:00:07 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 13, 2018, 01:16:49 PM
Quote from: Itchy on February 13, 2018, 01:12:01 PM
Is anyone else uncomfortable reading the grilling that girl is getting today? I know the defence have to ask questions but it seems a very aggressive line today. I dont know how people work as barristers, dont think I could prey on a poor unfortunate person like they do. Smacks of deperation to me from the defence as the risk the girl now getting sympathy for the attack from jurors.

That was the prosecuting barrister who's on her side!!

This is a common mistake - the prosecution is not "on her side". It's the state that is prosecuting them. The prosecution barristers will rake get over the coals as much as the defense ones of it helps them secure the conviction.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:03:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 02:38:36 PM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on February 13, 2018, 01:02:43 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 12:31:12 PM
I should also add that we are analysing days and days of evidence in this case based on a few paragraphs of coverage of what individual journalists thought were the key questions and answers. That's a dangerous thing to do. The reports may or may not be accurate and will certainly be subject to the interpretation that the writer amhas tried to put on them.

Nail on head here David. A quick search of this case on twitter throws up some on most sweeping generalisations you could encounter.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're not informed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed."

Lads, this isn't Soviet Russia and the court case is being reported by multiple outlets with little to no discrepancies that I'm aware of. This idea of news reports being untrustworthy has leaked into this thread a few times with a bunch of head-nodding like the above greeting it, yet the salient point of the reporting being quite accurate seems to not be made as vociferously. I wonder why?

Looks like the witness was a total damp squib for the folks hoping it would get the frat boys off the hook - what will the next thing they latch onto be? Not looking good for them..

Why do you say that Syf? I haven't seen anything? The person refuting Paddy Jackson is the alleged victim, so I'd expect her to do so. The other witness I've seen said that she didn't see into the room, but her friend did and said 'I've seen a threesome'. Sure isn't that what they are saying?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 03:06:23 PM
Looks like the case has took a major twist.

I said I wouldn't make up my mind until the end but starting to form an opinion now!!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:08:02 PM
Quote from: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 03:06:23 PM
Looks like the case has took a major twist.

I said I wouldn't make up my mind until the end but starting to form an opinion now!!!!

?? What am I missing? All I see is a girl saying she didn't feel threatened, she didn't see in to the room, but her friend said in a jokey fashion I've seen a threesome.

Is there something else?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: spuds on February 13, 2018, 03:09:10 PM
Quote from: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 01:29:41 PM
I see Jackson story is he didn't have penetrative sex with the girl and just used his hand - surely this would be easy to prove if the normal procedures where followed when she reported rape in the next few days?

Was it Jackson who said they were "top shaggers"?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 03:10:24 PM
I'm still not sure to be honest but is Jackson not saying they didn't have penetrative sex and this witness is saying she saw him thrusting into her?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 03:10:29 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:03:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 02:38:36 PM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on February 13, 2018, 01:02:43 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 12:31:12 PM
I should also add that we are analysing days and days of evidence in this case based on a few paragraphs of coverage of what individual journalists thought were the key questions and answers. That's a dangerous thing to do. The reports may or may not be accurate and will certainly be subject to the interpretation that the writer amhas tried to put on them.

Nail on head here David. A quick search of this case on twitter throws up some on most sweeping generalisations you could encounter.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're not informed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed."

Lads, this isn't Soviet Russia and the court case is being reported by multiple outlets with little to no discrepancies that I'm aware of. This idea of news reports being untrustworthy has leaked into this thread a few times with a bunch of head-nodding like the above greeting it, yet the salient point of the reporting being quite accurate seems to not be made as vociferously. I wonder why?

Looks like the witness was a total damp squib for the folks hoping it would get the frat boys off the hook - what will the next thing they latch onto be? Not looking good for them..

Why do you say that Syf? I haven't seen anything? The person refuting Paddy Jackson is the alleged victim, so I'd expect her to do so. The other witness I've seen said that she didn't see into the room, but her friend did and said 'I've seen a threesome'. Sure isn't that what they are saying?

Like I said was likely, she stumbled on the event and didn't spend long gawking. What's the difference between a gang rape and a threesome when you peak into a room for a second?

Deliciously, the witness also confirmed the victim wasn't terribly drunk in the house, which undermines massively what the defendants lawyers were trying to insinuate for the last two weeks.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 13, 2018, 03:11:54 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:08:02 PM
Quote from: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 03:06:23 PM
Looks like the case has took a major twist.

I said I wouldn't make up my mind until the end but starting to form an opinion now!!!!

?? What am I missing? All I see is a girl saying she didn't feel threatened, she didn't see in to the room, but her friend said in a jokey fashion I've seen a threesome.

Is there something else?

Follow Frank Greaney on Twitter.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on February 13, 2018, 03:12:25 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 13, 2018, 01:16:49 PM
Quote from: Itchy on February 13, 2018, 01:12:01 PM
Is anyone else uncomfortable reading the grilling that girl is getting today? I know the defence have to ask questions but it seems a very aggressive line today. I dont know how people work as barristers, dont think I could prey on a poor unfortunate person like they do. Smacks of deperation to me from the defence as the risk the girl now getting sympathy for the attack from jurors.

That was the prosecuting barrister who's on her side!!

No its not. I'm referring to the grilling about her "creating a narrative" which was from the defense.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 13, 2018, 03:14:58 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 03:10:29 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:03:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 02:38:36 PM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on February 13, 2018, 01:02:43 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 12:31:12 PM
I should also add that we are analysing days and days of evidence in this case based on a few paragraphs of coverage of what individual journalists thought were the key questions and answers. That's a dangerous thing to do. The reports may or may not be accurate and will certainly be subject to the interpretation that the writer amhas tried to put on them.

Nail on head here David. A quick search of this case on twitter throws up some on most sweeping generalisations you could encounter.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're not informed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed."

Lads, this isn't Soviet Russia and the court case is being reported by multiple outlets with little to no discrepancies that I'm aware of. This idea of news reports being untrustworthy has leaked into this thread a few times with a bunch of head-nodding like the above greeting it, yet the salient point of the reporting being quite accurate seems to not be made as vociferously. I wonder why?

Looks like the witness was a total damp squib for the folks hoping it would get the frat boys off the hook - what will the next thing they latch onto be? Not looking good for them..

Why do you say that Syf? I haven't seen anything? The person refuting Paddy Jackson is the alleged victim, so I'd expect her to do so. The other witness I've seen said that she didn't see into the room, but her friend did and said 'I've seen a threesome'. Sure isn't that what they are saying?

Like I said was likely, she stumbled on the event and didn't spend long gawking. What's the difference between a gang rape and a threesome when you peak into a room for a second?

Deliciously, the witness also confirmed the victim wasn't terribly drunk in the house, which undermines massively what the defendants lawyers were trying to insinuate for the last two weeks.

Strange language to be using in this context!! The victim herself has already said numerous times her recollection is hazy.

We pretty much expected this is what the witness would say it doesn't change much. Jackson says he didn't actually penetrate the girl yet the witness doesn't appear to have been asked about it?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 13, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
So the main witness says she didn't think she witnessed a rape...could be crucial
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 03:16:10 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 13, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
So the main witness says she didn't think she witnessed a rape...could be crucial

This is not news.

I see Jackson denied a threesome taking place to the witness' friend the morning after. He is now claiming Olding was in the room. The witness also saw Jackson thrusting into her - digital penetration my arse.

Lying since square one.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:18:34 PM
Quote from: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 03:10:24 PM
I'm still not sure to be honest but is Jackson not saying they didn't have penetrative sex and this witness is saying she saw him thrusting into her?

No, the first quote is from the victim. She is denying what Jackson says. The witness said she couldn't see into the room, but her friend said she saw a threesome.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:20:01 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 03:16:10 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 13, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
So the main witness says she didn't think she witnessed a rape...could be crucial

This is not news.

I see Jackson denied a threesome taking place to the witness' friend the morning after. He is now claiming Olding was in the room. Lying since square one.

Lads, are ye misreading something, or am I missing something? What I've seen is a witness saying she DIDN'T see into the room, but her friend said she saw a threesome. I don't think this is the witness who is supposed to have seen everything and the girl looked away from.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 13, 2018, 03:20:45 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 02:49:24 PM
Most of what is reported are direct transcripts of what was said which wouldn't seem to leave much room for inaccuracy or interpretation though obviously we're not told every word that was said either.

I thought the underwear being shown to the court was under-reported. I only saw it on Frank Greaney's twitter feed. Can't see any justification for it. Humiliating and irrelevant , assuming it's true of course.

It seems we're all just seeing snippets, and everyone is joining the dots in their own manner. From what I saw one of the barristers was making the case that the bleeding was prior to the events in the house, and also that contrary to a claim the girl had made earlier that she wasn't wearing fake tan, there was fake tan on her clothes, this was the relevance of her clothes being shown.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 03:21:20 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:18:34 PM
Quote from: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 03:10:24 PM
I'm still not sure to be honest but is Jackson not saying they didn't have penetrative sex and this witness is saying she saw him thrusting into her?

No, the first quote is from the victim. She is denying what Jackson says. The witness said she couldn't see into the room, but her friend said she saw a threesome.

You're getting confused. The friend of the witness who stayed the night at Jackson's and the witness have both been called to the stand today.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 13, 2018, 03:22:22 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:20:01 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 03:16:10 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 13, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
So the main witness says she didn't think she witnessed a rape...could be crucial

This is not news.

I see Jackson denied a threesome taking place to the witness' friend the morning after. He is now claiming Olding was in the room. Lying since square one.

Lads, are ye misreading something, or am I missing something? What I've seen is a witness saying she DIDN'T see into the room, but her friend said she saw a threesome. I don't think this is the witness who is supposed to have seen everything and the girl looked away from.

Aye, you're missing the second witness, the friend referred to in your snippet. At the end of the day, its clear none of us have a clue whats going on - no different to any other subject we all discuss on here I suppose....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on February 13, 2018, 03:25:08 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 03:16:10 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 13, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
So the main witness says she didn't think she witnessed a rape...could be crucial

This is not news.

I see Jackson denied a threesome taking place to the witness' friend the morning after. He is now claiming Olding was in the room. The witness also saw Jackson thrusting into her - digital penetration my arse.

Lying since square one.

I see on twitter a lot jumping on the fact that she didn't think it was rape.  However, I agree that the fact that she has contradicted Jackson's evidence is much more significant.  She is very specific in that she saw "thrusting".  The first issue is open to interpretation the second is not.

/Jim.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:25:12 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 03:21:20 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:18:34 PM
Quote from: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 03:10:24 PM
I'm still not sure to be honest but is Jackson not saying they didn't have penetrative sex and this witness is saying she saw him thrusting into her?

No, the first quote is from the victim. She is denying what Jackson says. The witness said she couldn't see into the room, but her friend said she saw a threesome.

You're getting confused. The friend of the witness who stayed the night at Jackson's and the witness have both been called to the stand today.

OK, that was a third girl I think. This is the report I read..

A young woman who attended an afterparty at Paddy Jackson's home said the rugby star "shook his head" and denied taking part in a threesome the morning after the incident.

The woman went back to Jackson's Oakleigh Park home in south Belfast in the early hours of Tuesday June 28, 2016 with two friends.

After having too much to drink, the woman stayed in an upstairs room in Jackson's home while her two friends left in a taxi around 4.25am.

She said she woke up on a sofa the next morning with Stuart Olding lying beside her, and after retrieving her phone, she called one of her friends who had also been at the party.

When asked about the conversation she had with her friend that morning, the woman said her friend told her she had walked into a bedroom and saw people having sex.

Giving evidence at Belfast Crown Court, the woman said her friend said she walked in on a threesome and that she closed the door. She also said her friend told her this in a "jokey manner".

She said she told Jackson that morning about what her friend told her about a threesome. And when asked how Jackson reacted, she said: "He just shook his head and just said 'no, that didn't happen'.

"I thought he knew what I was talking about, but because he shook his head, I didn't pursue it any further."

She said that after vomiting at the party, she went to bed. She also confirmed that nothing physical occurred between herself and Olding, as she didn't know he was lying beside her until she woke up at around 9am.

When asked about the party she attended, she described it as "all quite innocent fun". Telling the court she had never met the woman who also attended the party and who claimed she was raped that night by Jackson and Olding, she described her as "quite nice... quiet."

Also giving evidence earlier in the day was another young woman who attended the party with her two friends.

This witness said she went upstairs with a third woman to look for their friend so they could all go home.

She said that as she and her friend were walking up the stairs to look for their other friend "we could hear some type of noises coming from a room." She said her friend opened the door then closed it again after a few seconds.

When asked what her friend saw in the bedroom, the witness said "she said in a joking way "Oh my God, I have just seen a threesome."'

When asked to elaborate, she said her friend told her it involved Jackson, Olding and the woman at the centre of the claims. The witness added: "She (her friend) said Paddy had joked about joining in."

When she was asked by Jackson's barrister, Brendan Kelly QC, that when they went back down the stairs "did you have any concern as to what was going on in that bedroom?", the woman replied "no".

She was also asked about leaving her friend in the house overnight. She said that after looking for their friend, the two women went back downstairs and called a taxi.

She was asked if they had "any concern" about leaving their friend in the house, to which she replied: "No, we felt safe the whole time". And when asked if she "feared" for her friend's safety, she said "no, definitely not".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:26:46 PM
Neither of those two girls are the 'witness'. One of them only was told about the threesome the next morning, and the other wasn't able to see into the room, but her friend said she'd seen a threesome.

Has the third girl been called?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 13, 2018, 03:28:00 PM
ffs yes
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 13, 2018, 03:28:23 PM
Quote from: WT4E on February 13, 2018, 03:10:24 PM
I'm still not sure to be honest but is Jackson not saying they didn't have penetrative sex and this witness is saying she saw him thrusting into her?

as i read the reports also
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:29:03 PM
Sorry haranguerer. I'm just going by what I saw in the paper. Where is the reporting of the third girl's testimony? Usually the independent are all over this.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 13, 2018, 03:31:07 PM
 ;D

Sorry - its confusing aright. Frank Greaney on twitter has live updates. Being twitter theres not much detail, but headline points from each testimony

https://twitter.com/FrankGreaney?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:33:06 PM
That doesn't read well for the girl.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 03:35:35 PM
I'm not suggesting the reporting is incorrect in this case I'm simply suggesting that from personal experience I've run cases in the past that have been unrecognisable to me when I have read the reports. That is human nature when journalists try to condense lengthy questions, answers and snippets into a few hundred words at most. The emphasise, context and meaning can often be skewed

The prime example of that may well be what's happened today and this thread. It was my understanding that the defence had a female witness who was to be called who had been in the room, now from reading these comments there seems to be multiple female witnesses called and no one seems to be sure which ones which and what evidence each have given and whether either of these witnesses were the ones referred to by the defence last week. There's also talk that Jackson's evidence has been contradicted even though it hasn't been given yet. Again I go back to my earlier point I think we are foolhardy making up our minds on information presented like this.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:38:36 PM
David, that twitter feed that haranguerer passed on is a lot clearer than the independent, as it's chronological.

Basically 3 witnesses called.

1 Saw or heard nothing as she was downstairs, and only found out about 'threesome' when she rang friend next day
2 Saw nothing, but was with friend upstairs. Friend looked in room and said I've seen a threesome.
3. Actual eyewitness in the room, who says she 100% did not think it was rape, or that the girl was in distress. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 13, 2018, 03:39:24 PM
David, does digital penetration or penetration with an object without consent not count as rape too??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 13, 2018, 03:43:11 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:33:06 PM
That doesn't read well for the girl.

I know what you're saying but it is completely consistent with her evidence. Also confirms she wasn't that drunk. It contradicts PJ about anything happening or method of penetration.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 13, 2018, 03:43:54 PM
Another issue, Rory Harrison has been charged with perverting the course of justice.  I wonder what the evidence for this is??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 13, 2018, 03:45:27 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 13, 2018, 03:39:24 PM
David, does digital penetration or penetration with an object without consent not count as rape too??

My understanding of that is that this is seen as an aggravated sexual assault....an assault by penetration. There has to be penile penetration for rape.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 03:46:16 PM
It doesn't read well for the girl? The witness has blown the doors off Jackson's claims about digital penetration, and said the victim wasn't terribly drunk.

Those are much more concrete things than the nuances of what looks like a rape and what is a rape. I think our collective iamge of rape is coloured by film, this idea of crying, kicking and screaming and lashing out. It's done in movies so the emotions are bold and clear for the viewer to understand. It's a film-making technique. Reactions in real life are much different and that spectrum is quite massive.

The absence of consent is all that is needed for it to be rape and guess what, the victim didn't give her consent.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 03:47:23 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:38:36 PM
3. Actual eyewitness in the room, who says she 100% did not think it was rape, or that the girl was in distress.

She did, however, say that she saw Jackson on his knees "thrusting into" into the complainant. This directly contradicts Jackson's claim that he didn't have sex with her.

As Jim said above, this is far more relevant that her stating that, at the time, she didn't believe she had witnessed a rape.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 03:46:16 PM
It doesn't read well for the girl? The witness has blown the doors off Jackson's claims about digital penetration, and said the victim wasn't terribly drunk.

Those are much more concrete things than the nuances of what looks like a rape and what is a rape. I think our collection idea of rape is colour by film, this idea of crying, kicking and screaming and lashing out. It's done in movies so the emotions are bold and clear for the viewer to understand. Reactions in real life are much different and that spectrum is quite massive.

The absence of consent is all that is needed for it to be rape and guess what, the victim didn't give her consent.

Perhaps. But it doesn't look well for the girl. If this witness is credible, and the prosecution doesn't cast doubt on her, then the jury is going to be asking itself "How could a woman see this scene, and think it was consensual, if it was rape? ". The doubt has to be there.

I think Paddy Jackson is coming out of this like an absolute shithead, but I don't know he's going to get done for rape.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 13, 2018, 03:54:01 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:03:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 02:38:36 PM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on February 13, 2018, 01:02:43 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 12:31:12 PM
I should also add that we are analysing days and days of evidence in this case based on a few paragraphs of coverage of what individual journalists thought were the key questions and answers. That's a dangerous thing to do. The reports may or may not be accurate and will certainly be subject to the interpretation that the writer amhas tried to put on them.

Nail on head here David. A quick search of this case on twitter throws up some on most sweeping generalisations you could encounter.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're not informed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed."

Lads, this isn't Soviet Russia and the court case is being reported by multiple outlets with little to no discrepancies that I'm aware of. This idea of news reports being untrustworthy has leaked into this thread a few times with a bunch of head-nodding like the above greeting it, yet the salient point of the reporting being quite accurate seems to not be made as vociferously. I wonder why?

Looks like the witness was a total damp squib for the folks hoping it would get the frat boys off the hook - what will the next thing they latch onto be? Not looking good for them..

Why do you say that Syf? I haven't seen anything? The person refuting Paddy Jackson is the alleged victim, so I'd expect her to do so. The other witness I've seen said that she didn't see into the room, but her friend did and said 'I've seen a threesome'. Sure isn't that what they are saying?

Was any of them saying
" Oh suits you. Suits you Sir"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 03:56:42 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 03:46:16 PM
It doesn't read well for the girl? The witness has blown the doors off Jackson's claims about digital penetration, and said the victim wasn't terribly drunk.

Those are much more concrete things than the nuances of what looks like a rape and what is a rape. I think our collection idea of rape is colour by film, this idea of crying, kicking and screaming and lashing out. It's done in movies so the emotions are bold and clear for the viewer to understand. Reactions in real life are much different and that spectrum is quite massive.

The absence of consent is all that is needed for it to be rape and guess what, the victim didn't give her consent.

Perhaps. But it doesn't look well for the girl. If this witness is credible, and the prosecution doesn't cast doubt on her, then the jury is going to be asking itself "How could a woman see this scene, and think it was consensual, if it was rape? ". The doubt has to be there.

I think Paddy Jackson is coming out of this like an absolute shithead, but I don't know he's going to get done for rape.

Because from the beginning she has said she was frozen with fear. Witness walked into room and was, by the sounds of it, there's momentarily.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 03:58:01 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 03:46:16 PM
It doesn't read well for the girl? The witness has blown the doors off Jackson's claims about digital penetration, and said the victim wasn't terribly drunk.

Those are much more concrete things than the nuances of what looks like a rape and what is a rape. I think our collective iamge of rape is coloured by film, this idea of crying, kicking and screaming and lashing out. It's done in movies so the emotions are bold and clear for the viewer to understand. It's a film-making technique. Reactions in real life are much different and that spectrum is quite massive.

The absence of consent is all that is needed for it to be rape and guess what, the victim didn't give her consent.

That's not right.

There are three criteria for Rape

1. The accused must penetrate the vagina, anus or mouth of the victim
2. The victim must not have consented
3. The accused must not have reasonably believed that the victim so consented.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 03:59:31 PM
Witness has now said she 100% saw sex (Jackson) but doesn't think the woman looked "frozen with fear".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 13, 2018, 04:01:58 PM
i wonder how many rapes the witness has seen to be an expert as to whether its rape or not.........

its an awful case and will no doubt dramatically reduce reports into the future as people wont go through the trail by defence.......

equally the ROI version where the accused are entitled to their anonymity is far superior to the media circus enabled by naming of those charged in the 6 counties
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 13, 2018, 04:03:00 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 03:59:31 PM
Witness has now said she 100% saw sex (Jackson) but doesn't think the woman looked "frozen with fear".

Interestingly Olding hands 100% by his sides also as per witness / Frank Greaney coverage.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 04:05:43 PM
The problem I have reading those Twitter reports is that I can't believe they are the full story of the witnesses evidence. To me they read like defence witnesses but yet have been called by the crown and in the case of one witness seems to have been called to give inadmissible hearsay evidence. I can't for a single second believe that's right. So whilst I don't doubt the honesty of the reporter I still think we are missing out on something.

Similarly it's not clear where this idea that PJ's case is that he digitally penetrated the injured party has come from. From the tweets it looks like the prosecution have adduced this and it didn't come when the defendant would have been putting their case last week again this strikes me as nonsensical and it just couldn't be correct.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 13, 2018, 04:22:35 PM
Aye that seems strange alright - the prosecution are talking about what the defendant claims before he has actually claimed it in court. Surely couldn't be the case?

Theres a lot of stuff going on here, woman says didn't look like rape, but apparently prosecution has been allowed to make the focus of it that it contradicts something that paddy jackson has allegedly said?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 04:35:04 PM
They'll have access to his police interviews.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 04:54:22 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 04:35:04 PM
They'll have access to his police interviews.

Yes they will but the purpose of re-examination is to deal with things that arose during cross-examination. They would have had that information before the examination in chief. Again the reporting makes no sense to me
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 13, 2018, 04:59:22 PM
Trying to pull a fast one to get him on the stand perhaps? It would be hearsay, wouldn't it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 13, 2018, 05:00:45 PM
If I was falsely accused I'd be running to get into that witness box.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 13, 2018, 05:04:59 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 13, 2018, 05:00:45 PM
If I was falsely accused I'd be running to get into that witness box.
Getting into a box is what has caused all this trouble
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 05:05:08 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 13, 2018, 05:00:45 PM
If I was falsely accused I'd be running to get into that witness box.

Which is why you have a legal team around to advise you.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 13, 2018, 05:08:31 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 03:10:29 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2018, 03:03:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 02:38:36 PM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on February 13, 2018, 01:02:43 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 12:31:12 PM
I should also add that we are analysing days and days of evidence in this case based on a few paragraphs of coverage of what individual journalists thought were the key questions and answers. That's a dangerous thing to do. The reports may or may not be accurate and will certainly be subject to the interpretation that the writer amhas tried to put on them.

Nail on head here David. A quick search of this case on twitter throws up some on most sweeping generalisations you could encounter.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're not informed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed."

Lads, this isn't Soviet Russia and the court case is being reported by multiple outlets with little to no discrepancies that I'm aware of. This idea of news reports being untrustworthy has leaked into this thread a few times with a bunch of head-nodding like the above greeting it, yet the salient point of the reporting being quite accurate seems to not be made as vociferously. I wonder why?

Looks like the witness was a total damp squib for the folks hoping it would get the frat boys off the hook - what will the next thing they latch onto be? Not looking good for them..

Why do you say that Syf? I haven't seen anything? The person refuting Paddy Jackson is the alleged victim, so I'd expect her to do so. The other witness I've seen said that she didn't see into the room, but her friend did and said 'I've seen a threesome'. Sure isn't that what they are saying?

Like I said was likely, she stumbled on the event and didn't spend long gawking. What's the difference between a gang rape and a threesome when you peak into a room for a second?

Deliciously, the witness also confirmed the victim wasn't terribly drunk in the house, which undermines massively what the defendants lawyers were trying to insinuate for the last two weeks.

Sums this poster up.  To use that type of language in relation to a rape case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 13, 2018, 05:17:14 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 13, 2018, 04:59:22 PM
Trying to pull a fast one to get him on the stand perhaps? It would be hearsay, wouldn't it?

No. We don't do trial by ambush. I imagine and I stress imagine that this has either been put in cross examination by the defence last week and not reported on or it's been woefully reported.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 13, 2018, 06:05:30 PM
https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/rugby-rape-trial-hears-paddy-12019038
The barrister continued: “It is Mr Jackson’s case that he never had sexual intercourse with you on that night. He says he digitally penetrated you while you were having oral sex with Mr Olding. Did he have sex with you?”

Think that answers it then? Being mr Jackson’s *case* means it’s must have been mentioned already in court - his police testimony doesn’t necessarily form part of his case? So just wasn’t reported...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Aaron Boone on February 13, 2018, 06:06:33 PM
This could be a 100-pager.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 13, 2018, 06:12:55 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 13, 2018, 03:20:45 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 02:49:24 PM
Most of what is reported are direct transcripts of what was said which wouldn't seem to leave much room for inaccuracy or interpretation though obviously we're not told every word that was said either.

I thought the underwear being shown to the court was under-reported. I only saw it on Frank Greaney's twitter feed. Can't see any justification for it. Humiliating and irrelevant , assuming it's true of course.

It seems we're all just seeing snippets, and everyone is joining the dots in their own manner. From what I saw one of the barristers was making the case that the bleeding was prior to the events in the house, and also that contrary to a claim the girl had made earlier that she wasn't wearing fake tan, there was fake tan on her clothes, this was the relevance of her clothes being shown.
I don't think this has been addressed yet.

The complainant never said she wasn't wearing fake tan, just that she was only wearing fake tan on the parts of her body that would have been visible during the night out.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on February 13, 2018, 06:15:59 PM
Quote from: Aaron Boone on February 13, 2018, 06:06:33 PM
This could be a 100-pager.

Should be a zero-pager to be fair.

The biggest GAA message board in the North having a 50-page thread on an ongoing rape court case - with people making all sorts of accusations and suggestions.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 13, 2018, 06:20:06 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 13, 2018, 06:12:55 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 13, 2018, 03:20:45 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 13, 2018, 02:49:24 PM
Most of what is reported are direct transcripts of what was said which wouldn't seem to leave much room for inaccuracy or interpretation though obviously we're not told every word that was said either.

I thought the underwear being shown to the court was under-reported. I only saw it on Frank Greaney's twitter feed. Can't see any justification for it. Humiliating and irrelevant , assuming it's true of course.

It seems we're all just seeing snippets, and everyone is joining the dots in their own manner. From what I saw one of the barristers was making the case that the bleeding was prior to the events in the house, and also that contrary to a claim the girl had made earlier that she wasn't wearing fake tan, there was fake tan on her clothes, this was the relevance of her clothes being shown.
I don't think this has been addressed yet.

The complainant never said she wasn't wearing fake tan, just that she was only wearing fake tan on the parts of her body that would have been visible during the night out.

'Mr Kelly also quizzed her why there was spray tan on much of her clothes if she had only tanned the bottoms of her legs.

The complainant responded: "My top had a slit in it and I'd tanned the bits that were on show. That included my lower back as well. The point is I had not tanned my whole body. It was patchy and it looks ridiculous unless you have your clothes on."'

Cheers sid - I wasnt trying to mislead it was a response to the relevance of her clothes. Like much of the trial there are two separate accounts.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 13, 2018, 06:33:27 PM
Personally I think it has been a pretty disastrous day for the defence.

The witness who entered the room said she "100% saw sex" between Jackson and the complainant and the description of the position of the three people on the bed tallies perfectly with the complainant's. When people refer to "sex" they are not referring to dry humping, digital penetration or anything else except vaginal sex - that contradicts Jackson's story.

Witness testimony has backed up the complainant about her state of drunkenness or otherwise. That the complainant was "intoxicated" was a central narrative of defence cross examination.

The witness who entered the room has stated that there were no signs of the complainant positively consenting.

A few seconds is more than enough to establish whether sex is going on. It's a lot harder to establish whether a rape is occurring, and anybody who walked in is not going to automatically think of rape - it's highly unlikely they would - so the witness not suspecting a rape was going on is quite consistent with the complainant's story too.

I think the bit about Olding ending up lying on the sofa beside one of the witnesses is also very interesting. Apart from the obvious creepy aspect of him deciding to sleep on a sofa beside a young woman who had vomited at the party and was asleep by the time he'd decided to plonk himself down there (did he try anything on with a woman who was asleep, one wonders?), it undermines the defence story that Olding had previously gone upstairs - and to Jackson's bedroom no less - to crash out. That was a narrative which already looked very shaky but looks even more so after today.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Wildweasel74 on February 13, 2018, 06:53:41 PM
Think this thread reaching the point of closing! Its no real benefit to a thread on a Gaa discussion board to be honest
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 06:54:15 PM
The witness was supposed to be the clincher for the rape deniers. She's done much more damage to the case the defence had made than the idea that a rape took place.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 13, 2018, 07:04:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 13, 2018, 06:33:27 PM
Personally I think it has been a pretty disastrous day for the defence.

The witness who entered the room said she "100% saw sex" between Jackson and the complainant and the description of the position of the three people on the bed tallies perfectly with the complainant's. When people refer to "sex" they are not referring to dry humping, digital penetration or anything else except vaginal sex - that contradicts Jackson's story.

Witness testimony has backed up the complainant about her state of drunkenness or otherwise. That the complainant was "intoxicated" was a central narrative of defence cross examination.

The witness who entered the room has stated that there were no signs of the complainant positively consenting.

A few seconds is more than enough to establish whether sex is going on. It's a lot harder to establish whether a rape is occurring, and anybody who walked in is not going to automatically think of rape - it's highly unlikely they would - so the witness not suspecting a rape was going on is quite consistent with the complainant's story too.

I think the bit about Olding ending up lying on the sofa beside one of the witnesses is also very interesting. Apart from the obvious creepy aspect of him deciding to sleep on a sofa beside a young woman who had vomited at the party and was asleep by the time he'd decided to plonk himself down there (did he try anything on with a woman who was asleep, one wonders?), it undermines the defence story that Olding had previously gone upstairs - and to Jackson's bedroom no less - to crash out. That was a narrative which already looked very shaky but looks even more so after today.
I think so too.
The witness was probably thinking omg it's a threesome rather than WTF it might be rape
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 13, 2018, 07:06:17 PM
Was the female witness a friend of the plaintiff? She didn't do her any favours.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 07:08:04 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 13, 2018, 07:06:17 PM
Was the female witness a friend of the plaintiff? She didn't do her any favours.

No surprise with that strange take from you.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 13, 2018, 07:10:45 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on February 13, 2018, 06:53:41 PM
Think this thread reaching the point of closing! Its no real benefit to a thread on a Gaa discussion board to be honest

The same can be said for many threads in this section
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 13, 2018, 07:53:47 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2018, 07:08:04 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 13, 2018, 07:06:17 PM
Was the female witness a friend of the plaintiff? She didn't do her any favours.

No surprise with that strange take from you.

Indeed. And there's a quare stretch in the evenings.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 08:08:06 PM
So the defence brought someone in as witness to "help" their case? Strange
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 13, 2018, 08:21:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 08:08:06 PM
So the defence brought someone in as witness to "help" their case? Strange

My mistake. I thought the girls were all friends.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 13, 2018, 09:09:41 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 13, 2018, 06:05:30 PM
https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/rugby-rape-trial-hears-paddy-12019038
The barrister continued: "It is Mr Jackson's case that he never had sexual intercourse with you on that night. He says he digitally penetrated you while you were having oral sex with Mr Olding. Did he have sex with you?"

Think that answers it then? Being mr Jackson's *case* means it's must have been mentioned already in court - his police testimony doesn't necessarily form part of his case? So just wasn't reported...

A purely legal question - is this sort of commentary from the defense lawyer not hearsay? It seems like a way of getting the defence story into the record without the defendant having to take the stand (where they'd obviously be subject to cross-examination)

Edit: according to the piece on RTÉ, it was the prosecution who introduced this. Presumably then from a statement PJ made?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: CiKe on February 13, 2018, 09:32:47 PM
Not following this in the papers or on twitter, only here...

Did the texts the next day not refer to "spit- roasting"? Had never come across term beforehand but quick Google seemed to confirm what I presumed it meant in this context. Doesn't seem consistent with solely digital penetration.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 13, 2018, 09:44:41 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on February 13, 2018, 04:01:58 PM
i wonder how many rapes the witness has seen to be an expert as to whether its rape or not.........

its an awful case and will no doubt dramatically reduce reports into the future as people wont go through the trail by defence.......

equally the ROI version where the accused are entitled to their anonymity is far superior to the media circus enabled by naming of those charged in the 6 counties

Definitely, it would be better for everyone if this was behind closed doors. If they are convicted then the victim could decide whether or not to waive anonymity
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on February 13, 2018, 09:51:17 PM
It is ridiculous that all this is aired in detail in the public domain.

If this is not trial by media i don't know what is.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 09:55:27 PM
Are posters not just posting what's been on the media?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on February 13, 2018, 09:59:07 PM
Yes...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 10:37:53 PM
So be no different if talking about the OJ trial as it happened, views will be posted rightly or wrongly and hearsay will be voiced but ultimately it's down to the 9 men 3 woman and lady Judge!

And us taxpayers paying for it!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 13, 2018, 10:41:23 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 09:55:27 PM
Are posters not just posting what's been on the media?

I heard the girls only want back to the house to play Scrabble and they are huge Scrabble fanatics.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 13, 2018, 10:43:27 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 09:55:27 PM
Are posters not just posting what's been on the media?

But on a serious note, this is all part of the new Social Media world. Information is no longer for the privileged few, and everything is up for  discussion by everyone.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 10:51:49 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 13, 2018, 10:41:23 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 09:55:27 PM
Are posters not just posting what's been on the media?

I heard the girls only want back to the house to play Scrabble and they are huge Scrabble fanatics.

You're some twat.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 13, 2018, 11:36:19 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 10:51:49 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 13, 2018, 10:41:23 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 09:55:27 PM
Are posters not just posting what's been on the media?

I heard the girls only want back to the house to play Scrabble and they are huge Scrabble fanatics.

You're some twat.

Well MR2 started it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 11:44:09 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 13, 2018, 11:36:19 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 10:51:49 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 13, 2018, 10:41:23 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 09:55:27 PM
Are posters not just posting what's been on the media?

I heard the girls only want back to the house to play Scrabble and they are huge Scrabble fanatics.

You're some twat.

Well MR2 started it.

You said earlier you've daughters? I wonder will you be so quick to infer people are stupid and up for it for having the temerity to dress up for a night out and go to a house party when its your own flesh and blood involved. They'll grow up and wear short skirts and fake tan, they'll get pissed, they'll have sex, maybe even with people they've just met . I wonder if you'll find it all so f**king hilarious then, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 14, 2018, 12:15:42 AM
My musings on the day as was reported would be as follows:

1. The suggestion that the prosecution were able to bring up PJ's defence strikes me as odd unless that had already been put to the witness (but for whatever reason not reported in the press).

2.  The female witness who opened the door for less than a minute is interesting. My feeling is she is not the witness refered to by the defence last week. The one the IP may have been afraid was filming. That witness is either a different  witness to the one who took the stand today or else would have given a statement to the effect of what was put to the injured party. If it's the former then that defence witness is still to come or if it's the later I would have expected lengthy cross examination of why she gave a different version of events to police. The witness today seemed to be asked very few questions by the defence.
On that point whilst today's witness did seem to undermine PJ's contention that he did not have sex with the IP it does not seem to have aided the prosecution in regards either to Olding/McIlroy prosecution nor in respect of what appears to be the other matters at issue I.e. Did the IP consent or did the defendants have a reasonable belief she consented. On that basis I find it strange that the prosecution would have call her and can therefore only assume that we are missing some pertinent details about her evidence. 

3. The only reports I've seen about the other witness seem to be that she only gave inadmissible hearsay evidence. Again I presume that's not the case and something relevant hasn't been reported.

All in all there's nothing I've read today or over this trial to dissuade me from my original position that we simply are not getting all the evidence the jury are and therefore id be very slow to rush to judgement on this case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 12:58:18 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 11:44:09 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 13, 2018, 11:36:19 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 10:51:49 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 13, 2018, 10:41:23 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 09:55:27 PM
Are posters not just posting what's been on the media?

I heard the girls only want back to the house to play Scrabble and they are huge Scrabble fanatics.

You're some twat.

Well MR2 started it.

You said earlier you've daughters? I wonder will you be so quick to infer people are stupid and up for it for having the temerity to dress up for a night out and go to a house party when its your own flesh and blood involved. They'll grow up and wear short skirts and fake tan, they'll get pissed, they'll have sex, maybe even with people they've just met . I wonder if you'll find it all so f**king hilarious then, but I doubt it.

Of course they won't. The inability to even attempt to put yourself in the mindset of a woman seems to be beyond a large swath of this forum, be it rape, abortion or even pay gaps. This is in no way a fair society and those comfortable with that unfairness are happy to hide beyond wessel words and innuendo.

But of course if it was their kin the tune would change because their comfortable unchallenged worldview will have been spoiled beyond repair.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 14, 2018, 05:08:06 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 14, 2018, 12:15:42 AM
My musings on the day as was reported would be as follows:

1. The suggestion that the prosecution were able to bring up PJ's defence strikes me as odd unless that had already been put to the witness (but for whatever reason not reported in the press).

2.  The female witness who opened the door for less than a minute is interesting. My feeling is she is not the witness refered to by the defence last week. The one the IP may have been afraid was filming. That witness is either a different  witness to the one who took the stand today or else would have given a statement to the effect of what was put to the injured party. If it's the former then that defence witness is still to come or if it's the later I would have expected lengthy cross examination of why she gave a different version of events to police. The witness today seemed to be asked very few questions by the defence.
On that point whilst today's witness did seem to undermine PJ's contention that he did not have sex with the IP it does not seem to have aided the prosecution in regards either to Olding/McIlroy prosecution nor in respect of what appears to be the other matters at issue I.e. Did the IP consent or did the defendants have a reasonable belief she consented. On that basis I find it strange that the prosecution would have call her and can therefore only assume that we are missing some pertinent details about her evidence. 

3. The only reports I've seen about the other witness seem to be that she only gave inadmissible hearsay evidence. Again I presume that's not the case and something relevant hasn't been reported.

All in all there's nothing I've read today or over this trial to dissuade me from my original position that we simply are not getting all the evidence the jury are and therefore id be very slow to rush to judgement on this case.
You're far too reasoned for this thread David. If you want to be a proper Internet debater you need to pick a side and stick to it. Then just cherry-pick the parts of the reports that suit your argument. Take it from me, once you've felt you've felt the rush of petty point scoring, you'll never look back.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on February 14, 2018, 07:45:47 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 10:37:53 PM
So be no different if talking about the OJ trial as it happened, views will be posted rightly or wrongly and hearsay will be voiced but ultimately it's down to the 9 men 3 woman and lady Judge!

And us taxpayers paying for it!

The thread wouldn't be what it was without the media. My point is not about the thread. It's human nature. It's about the detail in the media.

Not sure what taxpayers has to do with it. We pay for a criminal justice system. The bit in the middle isn't that relevant.

Whatever the outcome these people are judged probably for the rest of their lives. For whoever the innocent party is that is bad- though we live in a guilty till proven otherwise society these days.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: MoChara on February 14, 2018, 09:02:01 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on February 14, 2018, 07:45:47 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 10:37:53 PM
So be no different if talking about the OJ trial as it happened, views will be posted rightly or wrongly and hearsay will be voiced but ultimately it's down to the 9 men 3 woman and lady Judge!

And us taxpayers paying for it!

The thread wouldn't be what it was without the media. My point is not about the thread. It's human nature. It's about the detail in the media.

Not sure what taxpayers has to do with it. We pay for a criminal justice system. The bit in the middle isn't that relevant.

Whatever the outcome these people are judged probably for the rest of their lives. For whoever the innocent party is that is bad- though we live in a guilty till proven otherwise society these days.


And maybe even for a good while after
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 14, 2018, 09:40:39 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 11:44:09 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 13, 2018, 11:36:19 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 10:51:49 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 13, 2018, 10:41:23 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 09:55:27 PM
Are posters not just posting what's been on the media?

I heard the girls only want back to the house to play Scrabble and they are huge Scrabble fanatics.

You're some twat.

Well MR2 started it.

You said earlier you've daughters? I wonder will you be so quick to infer people are stupid and up for it for having the temerity to dress up for a night out and go to a house party when its your own flesh and blood involved. They'll grow up and wear short skirts and fake tan, they'll get pissed, they'll have sex, maybe even with people they've just met . I wonder if you'll find it all so f**king hilarious then, but I doubt it.

I can find humour in all of the worst situations. It is a gift. Thank you.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on February 14, 2018, 11:23:02 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 12:58:18 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 11:44:09 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 13, 2018, 11:36:19 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2018, 10:51:49 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 13, 2018, 10:41:23 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 13, 2018, 09:55:27 PM
Are posters not just posting what's been on the media?

I heard the girls only want back to the house to play Scrabble and they are huge Scrabble fanatics.

You're some twat.

Well MR2 started it.

You said earlier you've daughters? I wonder will you be so quick to infer people are stupid and up for it for having the temerity to dress up for a night out and go to a house party when its your own flesh and blood involved. They'll grow up and wear short skirts and fake tan, they'll get pissed, they'll have sex, maybe even with people they've just met . I wonder if you'll find it all so f**king hilarious then, but I doubt it.

Of course they won't. The inability to even attempt to put yourself in the mindset of a woman seems to be beyond a large swath of this forum, be it rape, abortion or even pay gaps. This is in no way a fair society and those comfortable with that unfairness are happy to hide beyond wessel words and innuendo.

But of course if it was their kin the tune would change because their comfortable unchallenged worldview will have been spoiled beyond repair.

Men in the north earn less than women. Is this the pay gap you're referring to?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 14, 2018, 11:39:56 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 13, 2018, 06:33:27 PM
Personally I think it has been a pretty disastrous day for the defence.

The witness who entered the room said she "100% saw sex" between Jackson and the complainant and the description of the position of the three people on the bed tallies perfectly with the complainant's. When people refer to "sex" they are not referring to dry humping, digital penetration or anything else except vaginal sex - that contradicts Jackson's story.

Witness testimony has backed up the complainant about her state of drunkenness or otherwise. That the complainant was "intoxicated" was a central narrative of defence cross examination.

The witness who entered the room has stated that there were no signs of the complainant positively consenting.

A few seconds is more than enough to establish whether sex is going on. It's a lot harder to establish whether a rape is occurring, and anybody who walked in is not going to automatically think of rape - it's highly unlikely they would - so the witness not suspecting a rape was going on is quite consistent with the complainant's story too.

I think the bit about Olding ending up lying on the sofa beside one of the witnesses is also very interesting. Apart from the obvious creepy aspect of him deciding to sleep on a sofa beside a young woman who had vomited at the party and was asleep by the time he'd decided to plonk himself down there (did he try anything on with a woman who was asleep, one wonders?), it undermines the defence story that Olding had previously gone upstairs - and to Jackson's bedroom no less - to crash out. That was a narrative which already looked very shaky but looks even more so after today.

Why would you just cherry pick all the points that were helpful to the prosecution and completely ignore all the points that were helpful to the defence?

I think your Olding paragraph is absolute nonsense, but the rest is spot on and is indeed good for the prosecution. But you left out the other side, that while the witness did not see consent actively given, what she witnessed seemed consensual. And in now way was the girl frozen. She was actively given Olding oral, while his hands were by his side, so no physical force being used. And when the IP saw the witness, she did not yell for help that these two lads were raping here, instead she turned her head away to hide her face.

That's all very unhelpful for the prosecution, but as you said, if it really is PJ's story that he didn't penetrate, then that would seem to have been caught out as a lie. Doesn't make him guilty but severely questions his credibility. Goes to the earlier comments that saying nothing to the police would have been wiser, as the temptation to exaggerate or lie when being accused of something, if you thought it would help you (regardless of whether you are actually guilty or not), must be great.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on February 14, 2018, 12:56:29 PM
PJ has probably lied based on the witness evidence, but that same evidence makes a guilty verdict 'beyond reasonable doubt' unlikely IMO.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 14, 2018, 01:10:54 PM
Indo gives the names of the other three girls in the house that night, one of which I was informed was the IP;

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/witness-tells-court-that-she-is-100pc-positive-she-saw-paddy-jackson-have-sex-with-alleged-rape-victim-36602600.html (https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/witness-tells-court-that-she-is-100pc-positive-she-saw-paddy-jackson-have-sex-with-alleged-rape-victim-36602600.html)

This trial could go either way as yet.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rois on February 14, 2018, 01:15:40 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 14, 2018, 01:10:54 PM
Indo gives the names of the other three girls in the house that night, one of which I was informed was the IP;
Nope, the name I heard was not in that article.   
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 14, 2018, 01:49:46 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rugby-rape-trial-taxi-driver-who-took-alleged-victim-home-tells-court-she-was-sobbing-throughout-the-journey-36603451.html

A taxi driver who took a woman allegedly raped by two Irish rugby players home has told a court she was crying and sobbing throughout the journey.

He was further quizzed about a phone conversation involving Harrison in the car.

Mr Fisher said: "To me, from what I heard, I would explain it as talking as sort of in code."

He said he heard "small snippets".

"I recall him saying to the person on the phone 'She is with me now. She is not good. I'll call you in the morning'," added Mr Fisher.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 14, 2018, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: Rois on February 14, 2018, 01:15:40 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 14, 2018, 01:10:54 PM
Indo gives the names of the other three girls in the house that night, one of which I was informed was the IP;
Nope, the name I heard was not in that article.   

The alleged victims name cannot be published and any media outlet that would do so would be heavily fined
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 14, 2018, 01:55:17 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 14, 2018, 01:10:54 PM
Indo gives the names of the other three girls in the house that night, one of which I was informed was the IP;

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/witness-tells-court-that-she-is-100pc-positive-she-saw-paddy-jackson-have-sex-with-alleged-rape-victim-36602600.html (https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/witness-tells-court-that-she-is-100pc-positive-she-saw-paddy-jackson-have-sex-with-alleged-rape-victim-36602600.html)

This trial could go either way as yet.

Your informant is wrong.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 01:58:47 PM
If these fûckers can't be convicted with this mountain of circumstancial, medical evidence and actual proof of the defendants lying to the police then there is something serious broken with this system.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 14, 2018, 02:12:58 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 01:58:47 PM
If these fûckers can't be convicted with this mountain of circumstancial, medical evidence and actual proof of the defendants lying to the police then there is something serious broken with this system.

whats the medical evidence?  some vaginal bleeding which could happen from consensual sex which the prosecution themselves alluded too
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 14, 2018, 02:39:36 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 14, 2018, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: Rois on February 14, 2018, 01:15:40 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 14, 2018, 01:10:54 PM
Indo gives the names of the other three girls in the house that night, one of which I was informed was the IP;
Nope, the name I heard was not in that article.   

The alleged victims name cannot be published and any media outlet that would do so would be heavily fined

What does IP mean?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 14, 2018, 02:41:30 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 14, 2018, 02:39:36 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 14, 2018, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: Rois on February 14, 2018, 01:15:40 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 14, 2018, 01:10:54 PM
Indo gives the names of the other three girls in the house that night, one of which I was informed was the IP;
Nope, the name I heard was not in that article.   

The alleged victims name cannot be published and any media outlet that would do so would be heavily fined

What does IP mean?

Injured Party.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 14, 2018, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 01:58:47 PM
If these fûckers can't be convicted with this mountain of circumstancial, medical evidence and actual proof of the defendants lying to the police then there is something serious broken with this system.

Surely if they meet all 3 things then they will be convicted?

And calm down, half waiting on seeing you outside Lagan court with a banner ffs
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 14, 2018, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 01:58:47 PM
If these fûckers can't be convicted with this mountain of circumstancial, medical evidence and actual proof of the defendants lying to the police then there is something serious broken with this system.

Surely if they meet all 3 things then they will be convicted?

And calm down, half waiting on seeing you outside Lagan court with a banner ffs

You're the one making a fool of yourself with what you seem to think are subtle attempts at showing your contempt for the victim. Or maybe you don't realise what you're doing..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 14, 2018, 02:55:12 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 14, 2018, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 01:58:47 PM
If these fûckers can't be convicted with this mountain of circumstancial, medical evidence and actual proof of the defendants lying to the police then there is something serious broken with this system.

Surely if they meet all 3 things then they will be convicted?

And calm down, half waiting on seeing you outside Lagan court with a banner ffs

You're the one making a fool of yourself with what you seem to think are subtle attempts at showing your contempt for the victim. Or maybe you don't realise what you're doing..

Syferus lets set the record straight, Ive dont give a shit either way, if they are not guilty or if they are guilty... If they are guilty then throw the book at them, if they are not then get get off with it, thats how the jury system works, not the Syferus system, were everyone is guilty regardless of the facts...

Now let that sink in... I'd say most people here dont give a toss either, they are just curious as it involves a sports star, I'm sure there was a dozen rape cases lately that no one has even said anything as it wasnt in the news like this one...

So get off your soap box and talk about the facts of the case rather than your notions
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on February 14, 2018, 03:05:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 01:58:47 PM
If these fûckers can't be convicted with this mountain of circumstancial, medical evidence and actual proof of the defendants lying to the police then there is something serious broken with this system.

Don't think.anyone is suggesting a 3 some didn't take place.  Have seen no evidence as yet to suggest it wasn't consensual? 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 14, 2018, 03:08:24 PM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on February 14, 2018, 03:05:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 01:58:47 PM
If these fûckers can't be convicted with this mountain of circumstancial, medical evidence and actual proof of the defendants lying to the police then there is something serious broken with this system.

Don't think.anyone is suggesting a 3 some didn't take place.  Have seen no evidence as yet to suggest it wasn't consensual?

and equally no evidence to suggest it was
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LooseCannon on February 14, 2018, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: Aaron Boone on February 13, 2018, 06:06:33 PM
This could be a 100-pager.
Halfway there.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on February 14, 2018, 03:17:18 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 14, 2018, 02:55:12 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 14, 2018, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 01:58:47 PM
If these fûckers can't be convicted with this mountain of circumstancial, medical evidence and actual proof of the defendants lying to the police then there is something serious broken with this system.

Surely if they meet all 3 things then they will be convicted?

And calm down, half waiting on seeing you outside Lagan court with a banner ffs

You're the one making a fool of yourself with what you seem to think are subtle attempts at showing your contempt for the victim. Or maybe you don't realise what you're doing..

Syferus lets set the record straight, Ive dont give a shit either way, if they are not guilty or if they are guilty... If they are guilty then throw the book at them, if they are not then get get off with it, thats how the jury system works, not the Syferus system, were everyone is guilty regardless of the facts...

Now let that sink in... I'd say most people here dont give a toss either, they are just curious as it involves a sports star, I'm sure there was a dozen rape cases lately that no one has even said anything as it wasnt in the news like this one...

So get off your soap box and talk about the facts of the case rather than your notions

Ignore that self promoting dips..t. He had his colours pinned to one party weeks ago before anyone took the stand or evidence heard. I say the reason the  girl isn't getting her fair share of a neutral and balanced perspective on here is because he had it in for the defendants from the get go. Like any other post he try's to hijack and goes on some crusade when the only motive is to belittle and provoke the first one who takes the bait.

On the case the taxi drivers evidence today suggests a clearly upset girl and a possible cover up. Bad Situation the whole affair

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on February 14, 2018, 03:18:20 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on February 14, 2018, 03:08:24 PM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on February 14, 2018, 03:05:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 01:58:47 PM
If these fûckers can't be convicted with this mountain of circumstancial, medical evidence and actual proof of the defendants lying to the police then there is something serious broken with this system.

Don't think.anyone is suggesting a 3 some didn't take place.  Have seen no evidence as yet to suggest it wasn't consensual?

and equally no evidence to suggest it was

The difficulty the prosecution will have is the "Beyond reasonable doubt" proviso
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Kickham csc on February 14, 2018, 03:28:42 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on February 14, 2018, 03:08:24 PM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on February 14, 2018, 03:05:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 01:58:47 PM
If these fûckers can't be convicted with this mountain of circumstancial, medical evidence and actual proof of the defendants lying to the police then there is something serious broken with this system.

Don't think.anyone is suggesting a 3 some didn't take place.  Have seen no evidence as yet to suggest it wasn't consensual?

and equally no evidence to suggest it was

StGallsGAA

The woman at the centre of the case, while on the stand and under oath, said it wasn't consensual. That is evidence. She has maintained this stance under cross examination and looks like she was a compelling witness (no obvious contradictions, and wasn't caught lying)

So the defence has to now present evidence that it was consensual.

But evidence in the form of sworn testimony has been presented
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 14, 2018, 03:33:14 PM
I've been half following matters and like has been mentioned before numerous times, it is difficult to get a tangible grasp on things unless you are actually present at proceedings.

The taxi driver clearly knew something was amiss, from what I gather, and knew straight away when the police came what it was about. If I'm reading it correctly, PJ denies having penetrative sex yet there is a witness stating that she definitely saw him with alleged victim in a "threesome" with Olding. Was it only today that the alleged victim became aware that PJ was denying having penetrative sex or have I picked things up wrong?

Also there was a rumour going around about the identity of the alleged victim but this individual has turned out to be the witness who walked in and saw the alleged rape.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 14, 2018, 03:35:11 PM
Quote from: Kickham csc on February 14, 2018, 03:28:42 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on February 14, 2018, 03:08:24 PM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on February 14, 2018, 03:05:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 01:58:47 PM
If these fûckers can't be convicted with this mountain of circumstancial, medical evidence and actual proof of the defendants lying to the police then there is something serious broken with this system.

Don't think.anyone is suggesting a 3 some didn't take place.  Have seen no evidence as yet to suggest it wasn't consensual?

and equally no evidence to suggest it was

StGallsGAA

The woman at the centre of the case, while on the stand and under oath, said it wasn't consensual. That is evidence. She has maintained this stance under cross examination and looks like she was a compelling witness (no obvious contradictions, and wasn't caught lying)

So the defence has to now present evidence that it was consensual.

But evidence in the form of sworn testimony has been presented
Exactly. Prosecution witness has given sworn testimony anders been cross examined. The defence  will have thei chance to either put their clients in the witness box or let the case go to the jury without having their side heard under oath
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 03:45:35 PM
And as for the judge, I don't know about the specific affiliations of the judge in this case but the legal and judicial systems in the north are dominated by Catholics.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 14, 2018, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Please say this is a windup??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 03:55:35 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 14, 2018, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Please say this is a windup??

He may not have said it in the best terms but there is a massive advantage that monied, famous people enjoy in the justice system and in rape cases that star power aided by cultural biases meaning they're even more likely to get off than they should be.

Make no mistake, if the prosecution and this woman can nail these frat boys it will have been a remarkable achievement and I would hope those here would have the sense to acknowledge it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:02:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 14, 2018, 04:03:13 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 03:55:35 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 14, 2018, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Please say this is a windup??

He may not have said it in the best terms but there is a massive advantage that monied, famous people enjoy in the justice system and in rape cases that star power aided by cultural biases meaning they're even more likely to get off than they should be.

Make no mistake, if the prosecution and this woman can nail these frat boys it will have been a remarkable achievement and I would hope those here would have the sense to acknowledge it.

Oh right, wasn't aware that that was the case, is there a factual basis for your assertions that wealth or renown are factors in acquittals of people in rape cases in NI?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 14, 2018, 04:08:08 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 14, 2018, 11:39:56 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 13, 2018, 06:33:27 PM
Personally I think it has been a pretty disastrous day for the defence.

The witness who entered the room said she "100% saw sex" between Jackson and the complainant and the description of the position of the three people on the bed tallies perfectly with the complainant's. When people refer to "sex" they are not referring to dry humping, digital penetration or anything else except vaginal sex - that contradicts Jackson's story.

Witness testimony has backed up the complainant about her state of drunkenness or otherwise. That the complainant was "intoxicated" was a central narrative of defence cross examination.

The witness who entered the room has stated that there were no signs of the complainant positively consenting.

A few seconds is more than enough to establish whether sex is going on. It's a lot harder to establish whether a rape is occurring, and anybody who walked in is not going to automatically think of rape - it's highly unlikely they would - so the witness not suspecting a rape was going on is quite consistent with the complainant's story too.

I think the bit about Olding ending up lying on the sofa beside one of the witnesses is also very interesting. Apart from the obvious creepy aspect of him deciding to sleep on a sofa beside a young woman who had vomited at the party and was asleep by the time he'd decided to plonk himself down there (did he try anything on with a woman who was asleep, one wonders?), it undermines the defence story that Olding had previously gone upstairs - and to Jackson's bedroom no less - to crash out. That was a narrative which already looked very shaky but looks even more so after today.

Why would you just cherry pick all the points that were helpful to the prosecution and completely ignore all the points that were helpful to the defence?

I think your Olding paragraph is absolute nonsense, but the rest is spot on and is indeed good for the prosecution. But you left out the other side, that while the witness did not see consent actively given, what she witnessed seemed consensual. And in now way was the girl frozen. She was actively given Olding oral, while his hands were by his side, so no physical force being used. And when the IP saw the witness, she did not yell for help that these two lads were raping here, instead she turned her head away to hide her face.

That's all very unhelpful for the prosecution, but as you said, if it really is PJ's story that he didn't penetrate, then that would seem to have been caught out as a lie. Doesn't make him guilty but severely questions his credibility. Goes to the earlier comments that saying nothing to the police would have been wiser, as the temptation to exaggerate or lie when being accused of something, if you thought it would help you (regardless of whether you are actually guilty or not), must be great.

It turns out the couch where Olding crashed out was upstairs, so I'll give him that one. Still think it's weird that he would decide to lie down beside a woman who was asleep and had vomited earlier. But anyway.

You assert that "in no way was the girl frozen. She was actively giving Olding oral".

Going by the testimony as reported, you're in no position to be able to make that assertion. The witness who walked in said there were "no signs" of the complainant positively consenting.

"Actively giving oral", as you put it, would be classified as a sign of positive consent.

The witness who walked in testified that in her opinion the complainant did not look distressed. That was only her assumption - she was not in a position to know whether the complainant was distressed or not, because she is not the complainant.

Given that the witness stated that there were no signs of positive consent, the witness is thus in no position to be able to assert that what went on was consensual.

The default position of any normal person who walks in on a sexual encounter is to assume that it is consensual, given that the overwhelming majority of sexual encounters are consensual. People don't walk in on a sexual encounter and think to themselves, David Brent like, "I think that looks like a rape", unless it is absolutely obvious.

What is clear from the witness's testimony is that her belief that the encounter she walked in on was consensual was based on that very default assumption that sex is consensual. It was not based on any "signs" or appearance - because she has stated "there were no signs of positive consent".

The witness's testimony is consistent with the complainant's story.






Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 04:08:37 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:02:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have twats like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 14, 2018, 04:10:04 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:02:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

But we don't know the IP's background. To date she seems well educated and clued in. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 14, 2018, 04:11:45 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:02:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.
Seems to have fingers in a lot of different things
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Link on February 14, 2018, 04:12:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 14, 2018, 04:08:08 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 14, 2018, 11:39:56 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 13, 2018, 06:33:27 PM
Personally I think it has been a pretty disastrous day for the defence.

The witness who entered the room said she "100% saw sex" between Jackson and the complainant and the description of the position of the three people on the bed tallies perfectly with the complainant's. When people refer to "sex" they are not referring to dry humping, digital penetration or anything else except vaginal sex - that contradicts Jackson's story.

Witness testimony has backed up the complainant about her state of drunkenness or otherwise. That the complainant was "intoxicated" was a central narrative of defence cross examination.

The witness who entered the room has stated that there were no signs of the complainant positively consenting.

A few seconds is more than enough to establish whether sex is going on. It's a lot harder to establish whether a rape is occurring, and anybody who walked in is not going to automatically think of rape - it's highly unlikely they would - so the witness not suspecting a rape was going on is quite consistent with the complainant's story too.

I think the bit about Olding ending up lying on the sofa beside one of the witnesses is also very interesting. Apart from the obvious creepy aspect of him deciding to sleep on a sofa beside a young woman who had vomited at the party and was asleep by the time he'd decided to plonk himself down there (did he try anything on with a woman who was asleep, one wonders?), it undermines the defence story that Olding had previously gone upstairs - and to Jackson's bedroom no less - to crash out. That was a narrative which already looked very shaky but looks even more so after today.

Why would you just cherry pick all the points that were helpful to the prosecution and completely ignore all the points that were helpful to the defence?

I think your Olding paragraph is absolute nonsense, but the rest is spot on and is indeed good for the prosecution. But you left out the other side, that while the witness did not see consent actively given, what she witnessed seemed consensual. And in now way was the girl frozen. She was actively given Olding oral, while his hands were by his side, so no physical force being used. And when the IP saw the witness, she did not yell for help that these two lads were raping here, instead she turned her head away to hide her face.

That's all very unhelpful for the prosecution, but as you said, if it really is PJ's story that he didn't penetrate, then that would seem to have been caught out as a lie. Doesn't make him guilty but severely questions his credibility. Goes to the earlier comments that saying nothing to the police would have been wiser, as the temptation to exaggerate or lie when being accused of something, if you thought it would help you (regardless of whether you are actually guilty or not), must be great.

It turns out the couch where Olding crashed out was upstairs, so I'll give him that one. Still think it's weird that he would decide to lie down beside a woman who was asleep and had vomited earlier. But anyway.

You assert that "in no way was the girl frozen. She was actively giving Olding oral".

Going by the testimony as reported, you're in no position to be able to make that assertion. The witness who walked in said there were "no signs" of the complainant positively consenting.

"Actively giving oral", as you put it, would be classified as a sign of positive consent.

The witness who walked in testified that in her opinion the complainant did not look distressed. That was only her assumption - she was not in a position to know whether the complainant was distressed or not, because she is not the complainant.

Given that the witness stated that there were no signs of positive consent, the witness is thus in no position to be able to assert that what went on was consensual.

The default position of any normal person who walks in on a sexual encounter is to assume that it is consensual, given that the overwhelming majority of sexual encounters are consensual. People don't walk in on a sexual encounter and think to themselves, David Brent like, "I think that looks like a rape", unless it is absolutely obvious.

What is clear from the witness's testimony is that her belief that the encounter she walked in on was consensual was based on that very default assumption that sex is consensual. It was not based on any "signs" or appearance - because she has stated "there were no signs of positive consent".

The witness's testimony is consistent with the complainant's story.

Did the witness testimony not describe Olding having his hands on his thighs opposed to the back of the accusers head therefore not matching up?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: WT4E on February 14, 2018, 04:13:34 PM
What is the maximum penalty for the charges involved?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:17:23 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 04:08:37 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:02:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on February 14, 2018, 04:18:23 PM
There's no private schools in Ulster!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 14, 2018, 04:20:51 PM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on February 14, 2018, 04:18:23 PM
There's no private schools in Ulster!

There are paying schools I thought? but not like the public schools in England
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 14, 2018, 04:31:45 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:17:23 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 04:08:37 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:02:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.

Correct.  Both the socio-economic and geographic make up of the jury is a major factor in their decision making.  N.Ireland is a very small place.  The IP and the defendants all come from an affluent area of Belfast, all of them have been to grammar schools and are all middle class.  All parties in the case are young people of some privilege.  How will this affect the perception of the jurors? 

BTW the judge is Patricia Smyth.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 14, 2018, 04:47:24 PM
Quote from: WT4E on February 14, 2018, 04:13:34 PM
What is the maximum penalty for the charges involved?

Life for the rape and perverting the course of justice charges. The exposure is 2 years. Can't remember what the other charges are.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LeoMc on February 14, 2018, 04:49:07 PM
Quote from: Link on February 14, 2018, 04:12:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 14, 2018, 04:08:08 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 14, 2018, 11:39:56 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 13, 2018, 06:33:27 PM
Personally I think it has been a pretty disastrous day for the defence.

The witness who entered the room said she "100% saw sex" between Jackson and the complainant and the description of the position of the three people on the bed tallies perfectly with the complainant's. When people refer to "sex" they are not referring to dry humping, digital penetration or anything else except vaginal sex - that contradicts Jackson's story.

Witness testimony has backed up the complainant about her state of drunkenness or otherwise. That the complainant was "intoxicated" was a central narrative of defence cross examination.

The witness who entered the room has stated that there were no signs of the complainant positively consenting.

A few seconds is more than enough to establish whether sex is going on. It's a lot harder to establish whether a rape is occurring, and anybody who walked in is not going to automatically think of rape - it's highly unlikely they would - so the witness not suspecting a rape was going on is quite consistent with the complainant's story too.

I think the bit about Olding ending up lying on the sofa beside one of the witnesses is also very interesting. Apart from the obvious creepy aspect of him deciding to sleep on a sofa beside a young woman who had vomited at the party and was asleep by the time he'd decided to plonk himself down there (did he try anything on with a woman who was asleep, one wonders?), it undermines the defence story that Olding had previously gone upstairs - and to Jackson's bedroom no less - to crash out. That was a narrative which already looked very shaky but looks even more so after today.

Why would you just cherry pick all the points that were helpful to the prosecution and completely ignore all the points that were helpful to the defence?

I think your Olding paragraph is absolute nonsense, but the rest is spot on and is indeed good for the prosecution. But you left out the other side, that while the witness did not see consent actively given, what she witnessed seemed consensual. And in now way was the girl frozen. She was actively given Olding oral, while his hands were by his side, so no physical force being used. And when the IP saw the witness, she did not yell for help that these two lads were raping here, instead she turned her head away to hide her face.

That's all very unhelpful for the prosecution, but as you said, if it really is PJ's story that he didn't penetrate, then that would seem to have been caught out as a lie. Doesn't make him guilty but severely questions his credibility. Goes to the earlier comments that saying nothing to the police would have been wiser, as the temptation to exaggerate or lie when being accused of something, if you thought it would help you (regardless of whether you are actually guilty or not), must be great.

It turns out the couch where Olding crashed out was upstairs, so I'll give him that one. Still think it's weird that he would decide to lie down beside a woman who was asleep and had vomited earlier. But anyway.

You assert that "in no way was the girl frozen. She was actively giving Olding oral".

Going by the testimony as reported, you're in no position to be able to make that assertion. The witness who walked in said there were "no signs" of the complainant positively consenting.

"Actively giving oral", as you put it, would be classified as a sign of positive consent.

The witness who walked in testified that in her opinion the complainant did not look distressed. That was only her assumption - she was not in a position to know whether the complainant was distressed or not, because she is not the complainant.

Given that the witness stated that there were no signs of positive consent, the witness is thus in no position to be able to assert that what went on was consensual.

The default position of any normal person who walks in on a sexual encounter is to assume that it is consensual, given that the overwhelming majority of sexual encounters are consensual. People don't walk in on a sexual encounter and think to themselves, David Brent like, "I think that looks like a rape", unless it is absolutely obvious.

What is clear from the witness's testimony is that her belief that the encounter she walked in on was consensual was based on that very default assumption that sex is consensual. It was not based on any "signs" or appearance - because she has stated "there were no signs of positive consent".

The witness's testimony is consistent with the complainant's story.

Did the witness testimony not describe Olding having his hands on his thighs opposed to the back of the accusers head therefore not matching up?
Did McIlroy not claim it was him received the BJ in Jacksons bedroom? (Toby Hedworth QC yesterday)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Link on February 14, 2018, 05:06:00 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on February 14, 2018, 04:49:07 PM
Quote from: Link on February 14, 2018, 04:12:37 PM


Did the witness testimony not describe Olding having his hands on his thighs opposed to the back of the accusers head therefore not matching up?
Did McIlroy not claim it was him received the BJ in Jacksons bedroom? (Toby Hedworth QC yesterday)

No. McIlroy claimed a handjob.

I can't find the article which mentioned hands by his sides but Hound claimed that on her in the last few days.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 14, 2018, 05:16:47 PM
Quote from: Link on February 14, 2018, 04:12:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 14, 2018, 04:08:08 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 14, 2018, 11:39:56 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 13, 2018, 06:33:27 PM
Personally I think it has been a pretty disastrous day for the defence.

The witness who entered the room said she "100% saw sex" between Jackson and the complainant and the description of the position of the three people on the bed tallies perfectly with the complainant's. When people refer to "sex" they are not referring to dry humping, digital penetration or anything else except vaginal sex - that contradicts Jackson's story.

Witness testimony has backed up the complainant about her state of drunkenness or otherwise. That the complainant was "intoxicated" was a central narrative of defence cross examination.

The witness who entered the room has stated that there were no signs of the complainant positively consenting.

A few seconds is more than enough to establish whether sex is going on. It's a lot harder to establish whether a rape is occurring, and anybody who walked in is not going to automatically think of rape - it's highly unlikely they would - so the witness not suspecting a rape was going on is quite consistent with the complainant's story too.

I think the bit about Olding ending up lying on the sofa beside one of the witnesses is also very interesting. Apart from the obvious creepy aspect of him deciding to sleep on a sofa beside a young woman who had vomited at the party and was asleep by the time he'd decided to plonk himself down there (did he try anything on with a woman who was asleep, one wonders?), it undermines the defence story that Olding had previously gone upstairs - and to Jackson's bedroom no less - to crash out. That was a narrative which already looked very shaky but looks even more so after today.

Why would you just cherry pick all the points that were helpful to the prosecution and completely ignore all the points that were helpful to the defence?

I think your Olding paragraph is absolute nonsense, but the rest is spot on and is indeed good for the prosecution. But you left out the other side, that while the witness did not see consent actively given, what she witnessed seemed consensual. And in now way was the girl frozen. She was actively given Olding oral, while his hands were by his side, so no physical force being used. And when the IP saw the witness, she did not yell for help that these two lads were raping here, instead she turned her head away to hide her face.

That's all very unhelpful for the prosecution, but as you said, if it really is PJ's story that he didn't penetrate, then that would seem to have been caught out as a lie. Doesn't make him guilty but severely questions his credibility. Goes to the earlier comments that saying nothing to the police would have been wiser, as the temptation to exaggerate or lie when being accused of something, if you thought it would help you (regardless of whether you are actually guilty or not), must be great.

It turns out the couch where Olding crashed out was upstairs, so I'll give him that one. Still think it's weird that he would decide to lie down beside a woman who was asleep and had vomited earlier. But anyway.

You assert that "in no way was the girl frozen. She was actively giving Olding oral".

Going by the testimony as reported, you're in no position to be able to make that assertion. The witness who walked in said there were "no signs" of the complainant positively consenting.

"Actively giving oral", as you put it, would be classified as a sign of positive consent.

The witness who walked in testified that in her opinion the complainant did not look distressed. That was only her assumption - she was not in a position to know whether the complainant was distressed or not, because she is not the complainant.

Given that the witness stated that there were no signs of positive consent, the witness is thus in no position to be able to assert that what went on was consensual.

The default position of any normal person who walks in on a sexual encounter is to assume that it is consensual, given that the overwhelming majority of sexual encounters are consensual. People don't walk in on a sexual encounter and think to themselves, David Brent like, "I think that looks like a rape", unless it is absolutely obvious.

What is clear from the witness's testimony is that her belief that the encounter she walked in on was consensual was based on that very default assumption that sex is consensual. It was not based on any "signs" or appearance - because she has stated "there were no signs of positive consent".

The witness's testimony is consistent with the complainant's story.

Did the witness testimony not describe Olding having his hands on his thighs opposed to the back of the accusers head therefore not matching up?

Look Ma! No hands!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 05:27:34 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:17:23 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 04:08:37 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:02:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.

If you think the medical evidence doesn't in any way support rape I'm not the 'tît'. Would you or Gallsman like to explain how you 'consenually digitally penetrate' a woman and bruise her thighs in the process? Yikes.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 14, 2018, 05:40:04 PM
The defence has the right to read through the evidence gathered pre-trial, which would also have included the statement given to the police from the woman who entered the room. It appears that Jackson's testimony, that he did not have penetrative sex, has been totally contradicted by that witness
and his testimony has been caught out on a lie and no small lie.

Could it be that the witness had not given a full statement to the police or that she wasn't asked enough questions about what she actually witnessed?  Did the defence lawyer walk into that one blindfolded? or did he unnecessarily put the defence case at a higher risk for so little gain?


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 14, 2018, 06:49:53 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 05:27:34 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:17:23 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 04:08:37 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:02:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.

If you think the medical evidence doesn't in any way support rape I'm not the 'tît'. Would you or Gallsman like to explain how you 'consenually digitally penetrate' a woman and bruise her thighs in the process? Yikes.

Where have you got this information?  Article below and 3 others from the day they were discussing it doesn't mention i and the judge also mentions about details in the media being misrepresented so did you hear it in the courtroom

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/alleged-rape-victim-tells-jackson-and-olding-trial-she-was-handled-like-piece-of-meat-1.3383356
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 14, 2018, 07:28:57 PM
If the case were to finish today PJ and Olding would probably get off IMHO as beyond all reasonable doubt not clear cut however him saying he didn't have intercourse and the taxi drivers testimony don't sit well

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 08:06:05 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 05:27:34 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:17:23 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 04:08:37 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:02:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.

If you think the medical evidence doesn't in any way support rape I'm not the 'tît'. Would you or Gallsman like to explain how you 'consenually digitally penetrate' a woman and bruise her thighs in the process? Yikes.

Thighs are a fatty, fleshy part of the body. Easily bruised. If Jackson lied about having penetrative, vaginal sex, as it very much appears he did, that again does not mean he raped her. It means he lied about having sex with her. You continually ignore the fact that the prosecution said her injuries alone so not automatically point to rape. You accuse everyone on this thread of blindly following a narrative hey hypocritically do the exact same thing.

Simply put, you're a sanctimonious gobshite who has made his mind up about the case a much as you claim others have. You went the lads hung out to try without waiting for proof of their guilt. For all your posturing, you've no interest in true justice at all.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 14, 2018, 09:41:49 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 08:06:05 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 05:27:34 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:17:23 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 04:08:37 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:02:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.

If you think the medical evidence doesn't in any way support rape I'm not the 'tît'. Would you or Gallsman like to explain how you 'consenually digitally penetrate' a woman and bruise her thighs in the process? Yikes.

Thighs are a fatty, fleshy part of the body. Easily bruised. If Jackson lied about having penetrative, vaginal sex, as it very much appears he did, that again does not mean he raped her. It means he lied about having sex with her. You continually ignore the fact that the prosecution said her injuries alone so not automatically point to rape. You accuse everyone on this thread of blindly following a narrative hey hypocritically do the exact same thing.

Simply put, you're a sanctimonious gobshite who has made his mind up about the case a much as you claim others have. You went the lads hung out to try without waiting for proof of their guilt. For all your posturing, you've no interest in true justice at all.

why would he lie about having sex with her? I don't get that. If he is innocent but did have sex with her, why not say it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 14, 2018, 09:50:37 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on February 14, 2018, 09:41:49 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 08:06:05 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 05:27:34 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:17:23 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 04:08:37 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:02:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.

If you think the medical evidence doesn't in any way support rape I'm not the 'tît'. Would you or Gallsman like to explain how you 'consenually digitally penetrate' a woman and bruise her thighs in the process? Yikes.

Thighs are a fatty, fleshy part of the body. Easily bruised. If Jackson lied about having penetrative, vaginal sex, as it very much appears he did, that again does not mean he raped her. It means he lied about having sex with her. You continually ignore the fact that the prosecution said her injuries alone so not automatically point to rape. You accuse everyone on this thread of blindly following a narrative hey hypocritically do the exact same thing.

Simply put, you're a sanctimonious gobshite who has made his mind up about the case a much as you claim others have. You went the lads hung out to try without waiting for proof of their guilt. For all your posturing, you've no interest in true justice at all.

why would he lie about having sex with her? I don't get that. If he is innocent but did have sex with her, why not say it?
Correct. It's a lot easier to say he had sex with her consent than deny it completely especially when there are witnesses including a co  accused who could turn on him to save his own neck
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on February 14, 2018, 10:05:18 PM
Young men and women say stupid things when put under pressure. Panic sets in.

We've all had our end away. How many girls get asked - "Do you want it?" and actually answer "Yes"?  The vast majority of communications in the bedroom is non-verbal. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 10:23:41 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on February 14, 2018, 09:41:49 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 08:06:05 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 14, 2018, 05:27:34 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:17:23 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 04:08:37 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2018, 04:02:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2018, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on February 14, 2018, 03:41:39 PM
I think every one is missing the crucial point in this case .
they are Rugby players who went to private schools same as the judge probably and it under English law
so yes they are going to get off

Neither Methody or BRA are private schools.

They may not be but trust me the old boys network from both has fingers in many pies.

As do plenty of (and more) from our side of the fence. Not sure you'd ever hear to much outrage here about the advantages young (and not so young), prominent Catholics enjoy in the justice system.

If they get off, it'll be because of the inability to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because they're rugby boys with connections like some muppets will claim. Especially when you have t**ts like Syferus flat out lying that there is, for example, medical evidence pointing to rape

Agreed. I think what will be more telling in terms of predicting the outcome will be the socio-economic make up of the jury seeing as they will be the final decision makers.

If you think the medical evidence doesn't in any way support rape I'm not the 'tît'. Would you or Gallsman like to explain how you 'consenually digitally penetrate' a woman and bruise her thighs in the process? Yikes.

Thighs are a fatty, fleshy part of the body. Easily bruised. If Jackson lied about having penetrative, vaginal sex, as it very much appears he did, that again does not mean he raped her. It means he lied about having sex with her. You continually ignore the fact that the prosecution said her injuries alone so not automatically point to rape. You accuse everyone on this thread of blindly following a narrative hey hypocritically do the exact same thing.

Simply put, you're a sanctimonious gobshite who has made his mind up about the case a much as you claim others have. You went the lads hung out to try without waiting for proof of their guilt. For all your posturing, you've no interest in true justice at all.

why would he lie about having sex with her? I don't get that. If he is innocent but did have sex with her, why not say it?

Presumably terrified at the thought of being asked in for questioning over a rape charge.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: highorlow on February 15, 2018, 12:12:52 AM
Just following this trial on and off and the believability of witnesses is really only definitive if your face to face with the person. I believe that most Irish people are good judges of each other so whichever outcome is decided justice will be served.

However one fact I have picked up on though, and maybe, I stand corrected, maybe the poster McKeown can confirm this? Is that the IP did fail to mention in her initial statements anything about the witness that entered the room? She was never mentioned by the IP to the cops in either of her visits to them?

This is the witness that has more or less stated that what she saw was consensual sex.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 12:43:35 AM
Quote from: highorlow on February 15, 2018, 12:12:52 AM

This is the witness that has more or less stated that what she saw was consensual sex.

This the sort of throwaway comment that fucks things up.

She said she saw sex with Jackson and, upon entering the room, didn't see anything sinister. She also said she didn't see anything that would positively confirm consent. This is NOT the same as saying she saw consensual sex.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 15, 2018, 06:11:20 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 12:43:35 AM
Quote from: highorlow on February 15, 2018, 12:12:52 AM

This is the witness that has more or less stated that what she saw was consensual sex.

This the sort of throwaway comment that f**ks things up.

She said she saw sex with Jackson and, upon entering the room, didn't see anything sinister. She also said she didn't see anything that would positively confirm consent. This is NOT the same as saying she saw consensual sex.
She might have looked for a few seconds. It was her first live view of a threesome. That novelty value was what registered. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 15, 2018, 07:11:03 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 15, 2018, 06:11:20 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 12:43:35 AM
Quote from: highorlow on February 15, 2018, 12:12:52 AM

This is the witness that has more or less stated that what she saw was consensual sex.

This the sort of throwaway comment that f**ks things up.

She said she saw sex with Jackson and, upon entering the room, didn't see anything sinister. She also said she didn't see anything that would positively confirm consent. This is NOT the same as saying she saw consensual sex.
She might have looked for a few seconds. It was her first live view of a threesome. That novelty value was what registered.

Alright so, you are dismissing her evidence because it was the novelty value that registered. Nothing else.

And you know this how?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: highorlow on February 15, 2018, 07:18:42 AM
The lawyer added: "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?"

Again, Ms Florence replied: "No."


Ok, I just went by the transcript from the testimony. That's all, nothing "throwaway" in what I've said.

I still am unsure if this witness was mentioned by the IP in both cop interviews, she certainly didn't mention her in the early interview,  the one a few weeks later, perhaps she did mention her? The IP also never mentioned this witness to her friends the next day.

Why would the IP not mention this lady to the cops in that interview or to her friends?

The taxi journey is not contemporaneous evidence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 15, 2018, 07:24:49 AM
Quote from: Taylor on February 15, 2018, 07:11:03 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 15, 2018, 06:11:20 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 12:43:35 AM
Quote from: highorlow on February 15, 2018, 12:12:52 AM

This is the witness that has more or less stated that what she saw was consensual sex.

This the sort of throwaway comment that f**ks things up.

She said she saw sex with Jackson and, upon entering the room, didn't see anything sinister. She also said she didn't see anything that would positively confirm consent. This is NOT the same as saying she saw consensual sex.
She might have looked for a few seconds. It was her first live view of a threesome. That novelty value was what registered.

Alright so, you are dismissing her evidence because it was the novelty value that registered. Nothing else.

And you know this how?
I think her evidence on the basis of a few seconds is a thin reed on which to lean for the defence. If it was consensual why was the lady in a state in the taxi home?

I think that PJ and SO most likely had a bad dose of buidín foolish and were led by their penises and that the situation spiralled out-of control. They tried to cover it up but there are too many inconsistencies. 
That is my impression.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 15, 2018, 07:43:18 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 15, 2018, 07:24:49 AM
Quote from: Taylor on February 15, 2018, 07:11:03 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 15, 2018, 06:11:20 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 12:43:35 AM
Quote from: highorlow on February 15, 2018, 12:12:52 AM

This is the witness that has more or less stated that what she saw was consensual sex.

This the sort of throwaway comment that f**ks things up.

She said she saw sex with Jackson and, upon entering the room, didn't see anything sinister. She also said she didn't see anything that would positively confirm consent. This is NOT the same as saying she saw consensual sex.
She might have looked for a few seconds. It was her first live view of a threesome. That novelty value was what registered.

Alright so, you are dismissing her evidence because it was the novelty value that registered. Nothing else.

And you know this how?
I think her evidence on the basis of a few seconds is a thin reed on which to lean for the defence. If it was consensual why was the lady in a state in the taxi home?

I think that PJ and SO most likely had a bad dose of buidín foolish and were led by their penises and that the situation spiralled out-of control. They tried to cover it up but there are too many inconsistencies. 
That is my impression.

And to consider both sides of the story, perhaps it all when wrong when the IP freaked out because the other woman entered the room and the IP feared it would all end up on social media. I believe that was a concern of hers and she called/contacted people to see if there had been any recordings of it released.
That's just for balance and not to assume guilt/innocence before the resident judge comes on to say I'm an apologist
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 07:46:44 AM
Crying or being annoyed in a taxi will not convince me if something bad happened..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 08:17:27 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 15, 2018, 07:24:49 AM
Quote from: Taylor on February 15, 2018, 07:11:03 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 15, 2018, 06:11:20 AM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 12:43:35 AM
Quote from: highorlow on February 15, 2018, 12:12:52 AM

This is the witness that has more or less stated that what she saw was consensual sex.

This the sort of throwaway comment that f**ks things up.

She said she saw sex with Jackson and, upon entering the room, didn't see anything sinister. She also said she didn't see anything that would positively confirm consent. This is NOT the same as saying she saw consensual sex.
She might have looked for a few seconds. It was her first live view of a threesome. That novelty value was what registered.

Alright so, you are dismissing her evidence because it was the novelty value that registered. Nothing else.

And you know this how?
I think her evidence on the basis of a few seconds is a thin reed on which to lean for the defence. If it was consensual why was the lady in a state in the taxi home?

Simple explanation for that too from a defence point of view - they'll simply say she was mortified to have been involved in a threesome and have it witnessed, knowing it would get out.

Quote from: highorlow on February 15, 2018, 07:18:42 AM
The lawyer added: "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?"

Again, Ms Florence replied: "No."


Ok, I just went by the transcript from the testimony. That's all, nothing "throwaway" in what I've said.

I still am unsure if this witness was mentioned by the IP in both cop interviews, she certainly didn't mention her in the early interview,  the one a few weeks later, perhaps she did mention her? The IP also never mentioned this witness to her friends the next day.

Why would the IP not mention this lady to the cops in that interview or to her friends?

The taxi journey is not contemporaneous evidence.

Because her walking into a room momentarily and not seeing anything particularly concerning with regards consent (violence, evidence of a struggle etc) is not the same as her saying "I saw consensual sex" as you implied. That's why it's a throwaway comment - you're paraphrasing the witness.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LeoMc on February 15, 2018, 08:26:34 AM
Quote from: highorlow on February 15, 2018, 07:18:42 AM
The lawyer added: "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?"

Again, Ms Florence replied: "No."


Ok, I just went by the transcript from the testimony. That's all, nothing "throwaway" in what I've said.

I still am unsure if this witness was mentioned by the IP in both cop interviews, she certainly didn't mention her in the early interview,  the one a few weeks later, perhaps she did mention her? The IP also never mentioned this witness to her friends the next day.

Why would the IP not mention this lady to the cops in that interview or to her friends?

The taxi journey is not contemporaneous evidence.

On re-examination Hedworth QC asked her if there were any signs of the woman "positively consenting". She said No.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 08:28:24 AM
I am reluctant to do this as it may be speculation but I think the women referred to by the defence last week as having been in the room is not the woman who has given evidence. I say this for two reasons.

1. What was reported to have been put to the IP is significantly different to the evidence reportedly given by the witness who has given evidence this week. Now that may well be because that witness had given a statement to the police the contents of which formed the basis of what was put to the IP but if that had happened then I would have expected lengthy cross examinations from the defence as to why the evidence differed. Reports have not suggested that occurred.

2. The way it was reported that the evidence was put to the IP made it seem like a defence witness was to be called when in fact we have only had prosecution witnesses so far.

As I say the above is purely on the basis of the coverage I have read of the case and could be wholly inaccurate and not necessarily due to inaccurate reporting simply because of the nuances of a criminal justice system not being fully understood by reporters.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 08:32:44 AM
I should also add at this stage that as I said in a previous post. There are three elements to an offence of rape. We don't know really seemed to know yet whether the defence is no penile penetration occurred, the IP consented or I reasonably believed in all the circumstances that the IP had consented.

I would have imagined it was the latter two or some combination thereof.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 15, 2018, 08:58:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 07:46:44 AM
Crying or being annoyed in a taxi will not convince me if something bad happened..

Questions missed for taxi driver:  How often do you pick up couples late night or early hours of the morning where one or more of them appears to be upset and or sobbing or soiled their clothing?  What stood out for you on this occasion that was different from your previous experience?

Either by very condensed reporting or weak questioning by barrister, the taxi driver appears to have gone unchallenged in witness box.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 15, 2018, 09:13:10 AM
Quote from: WT4E on February 15, 2018, 09:10:48 AM
Did anyone see Nolan last night. Did we Jamie hint that Arlene was about to do a deal and was told by gwass whoots unionists that she wouldn't be?

I almost got the feeling that it might have been loyalists telling her!

You might be in the wrong thread.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 09:16:43 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 15, 2018, 08:58:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 07:46:44 AM
Crying or being annoyed in a taxi will not convince me if something bad happened..

Questions missed for taxi driver:  How often do you pick up couples late night or early hours of the morning where one or more of them appears to be upset and or sobbing or soiled their clothing?  What stood out for you on this occasion that was different from your previous experience?

Either by very condensed reporting or weak questioning by barrister, the taxi driver appears to have gone unchallenged in witness box.

Ive been distressted in a taxi when i look at the meter going from 4 quid to £15 in the space of a mile!!

I think if they didnt question the taxi man that much then i believe they didnt think it was needed.. this case will come down to their word over hers..

Was there any DNA evidence from PJ in her to prove intercourse? was there any condoms found at the house? is there any other physical evidence of resistance other than freezing with fear?

As much as the lads acted like dicks (as lads do when they are pissed and full of horn) I'm struggling to see how these lads will get convicted of rape and the other charges..

9 guys 3 women and a woman judge, Id say women are actually harder on women so not sure how it would favour having more guys on the jury...

I dont know about anyone here but there would have been nights out were you would have landed back at a party and there would have been drinks music and of course "top shagging" going on in the bedrooms and maybe 99% of them were all above board but in with all the drink taken would that have been the thing to do if you were sober? luckily enough i wasnt ever in that position, but it just takes soemone, man or woman to have that moment of regret afters and panic! then you are in a complete shit storm!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 09:53:15 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 15, 2018, 08:58:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 07:46:44 AM
Crying or being annoyed in a taxi will not convince me if something bad happened..

Questions missed for taxi driver:  How often do you pick up couples late night or early hours of the morning where one or more of them appears to be upset and or sobbing or soiled their clothing?  What stood out for you on this occasion that was different from your previous experience?

Either by very condensed reporting or weak questioning by barrister, the taxi driver appears to have gone unchallenged in witness box.
Crying in a taxi late at night won't be much use.
I have often seen young girls bawling their eyes out late at night after drinking. There are loads of reasons that could be the cause.
He broke up with me. He danced with some slut, too much gin, he rode me, he didn't ride me.
The fun will start when or if the accused give evidence
Hang together or they'll all hang separately
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 15, 2018, 09:56:40 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 09:53:15 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 15, 2018, 08:58:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 07:46:44 AM
Crying or being annoyed in a taxi will not convince me if something bad happened..

Questions missed for taxi driver:  How often do you pick up couples late night or early hours of the morning where one or more of them appears to be upset and or sobbing or soiled their clothing?  What stood out for you on this occasion that was different from your previous experience?

Either by very condensed reporting or weak questioning by barrister, the taxi driver appears to have gone unchallenged in witness box.
Crying in a tailgate alright won't be much use.
I have often seen young girls bawling their eyes out late at night after drinking. There are loads of reasons that could be the cause.
He broke up with me. He danced with some slut, too much gin, he rode me, he didn't ride me.

Exactly, my point, why would a barrister not ask these questions to show how common this experience was for the taxi driver collecting late night travellers.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 10:06:57 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 15, 2018, 09:56:40 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 09:53:15 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 15, 2018, 08:58:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 07:46:44 AM
Crying or being annoyed in a taxi will not convince me if something bad happened..

Questions missed for taxi driver:  How often do you pick up couples late night or early hours of the morning where one or more of them appears to be upset and or sobbing or soiled their clothing?  What stood out for you on this occasion that was different from your previous experience?

Either by very condensed reporting or weak questioning by barrister, the taxi driver appears to have gone unchallenged in witness box.
Crying in a tailgate alright won't be much use.
I have often seen young girls bawling their eyes out late at night after drinking. There are loads of reasons that could be the cause.
He broke up with me. He danced with some slut, too much gin, he rode me, he didn't ride me.

Exactly, my point, why would a barrister not ask these questions to show how common this experience was for the taxi driver collecting late night travellers.

I suppose we are only getting snippets of the evidence but it is an obvious question.
I was at a trial once and the Judge told the jury to use their common sense and  life experience when assessing evidence. Any of us who have been out socialising late at night will have seen stupid young ones bawling their eyes out. I'm sure taxi drivers could tell a few tales.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 10:17:35 AM
Apologies if this has been said already, but is it the case that the defendants don't have to take the stand.

If the prosecution calls them, can they refuse?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: WT4E on February 15, 2018, 10:20:38 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 15, 2018, 09:13:10 AM
Quote from: WT4E on February 15, 2018, 09:10:48 AM
Did anyone see Nolan last night. Did we Jamie hint that Arlene was about to do a deal and was told by gwass whoots unionists that she wouldn't be?

I almost got the feeling that it might have been loyalists telling her!

You might be in the wrong thread.

Sorry - I have removed! :)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 15, 2018, 10:21:32 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 10:17:35 AM
Apologies if this has been said already, but is it the case that the defendants don't have to take the stand.

If the prosecution calls them, can they refuse?
I believe they don't have to.  It is their right to not incriminate themselves.  I stand to be corrected though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 10:46:42 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 15, 2018, 10:21:32 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 10:17:35 AM
Apologies if this has been said already, but is it the case that the defendants don't have to take the stand.

If the prosecution calls them, can they refuse?
I believe they don't have to.  It is their right to not incriminate themselves.  I stand to be corrected though.
They can refuse and jury are not to draw any inference from this.
If they do give evidence they have to answer all questions and cannot "plead the fifth" like they can in the U.S.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 15, 2018, 10:47:56 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 08:28:24 AM
I am reluctant to do this as it may be speculation but I think the women referred to by the defence last week as having been in the room is not the woman who has given evidence. I say this for two reasons.

1. What was reported to have been put to the IP is significantly different to the evidence reportedly given by the witness who has given evidence this week. Now that may well be because that witness had given a statement to the police the contents of which formed the basis of what was put to the IP but if that had happened then I would have expected lengthy cross examinations from the defence as to why the evidence differed. Reports have not suggested that occurred.

2. The way it was reported that the evidence was put to the IP made it seem like a defence witness was to be called when in fact we have only had prosecution witnesses so far.

As I say the above is purely on the basis of the coverage I have read of the case and could be wholly inaccurate and not necessarily due to inaccurate reporting simply because of the nuances of a criminal justice system not being fully understood by reporters.
99.9% sure you're not right here. This is the only witness. Reports said there were 4 women in the house, the witness, her 2 friends and the IP.

How do you think her evidence differed from what was expected?

The surprise to me was that the prosecution called her rather than the defense. But maybe that was a tactic on his behalf (knowing the defence would call her anyway), so he'd be able to take the lead. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 10:51:05 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 10:17:35 AM
Apologies if this has been said already, but is it the case that the defendants don't have to take the stand.

If the prosecution calls them, can they refuse?

They are not compellable witnesses the prosecution can't call them. Whether they take the stand or not is entirely up to them although a jury can be invited to draw certain inferences if they choose not to take the stand. Interestingly in any multiple defendant case anything said by one co-accused about another (for example in an interview) is not admissible evidence unless that defendant takes the stand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 11:03:14 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 10:51:05 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 10:17:35 AM
Apologies if this has been said already, but is it the case that the defendants don't have to take the stand.

If the prosecution calls them, can they refuse?

They are not compellable witnesses the prosecution can't call them. Whether they take the stand or not is entirely up to them although a jury can be invited to draw certain inferences if they choose not to take the stand. Interestingly in any multiple defendant case anything said by one co-accused about another (for example in an interview) is not admissible evidence unless that defendant takes the stand.

I thought a jury could not draw inferences but my learned friend seems very correct.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 11:13:13 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 15, 2018, 10:47:56 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 08:28:24 AM
I am reluctant to do this as it may be speculation but I think the women referred to by the defence last week as having been in the room is not the woman who has given evidence. I say this for two reasons.

1. What was reported to have been put to the IP is significantly different to the evidence reportedly given by the witness who has given evidence this week. Now that may well be because that witness had given a statement to the police the contents of which formed the basis of what was put to the IP but if that had happened then I would have expected lengthy cross examinations from the defence as to why the evidence differed. Reports have not suggested that occurred.

2. The way it was reported that the evidence was put to the IP made it seem like a defence witness was to be called when in fact we have only had prosecution witnesses so far.

As I say the above is purely on the basis of the coverage I have read of the case and could be wholly inaccurate and not necessarily due to inaccurate reporting simply because of the nuances of a criminal justice system not being fully understood by reporters.
99.9% sure you're not right here. This is the only witness. Reports said there were 4 women in the house, the witness, her 2 friends and the IP.

How do you think her evidence differed from what was expected?

The surprise to me was that the prosecution called her rather than the defense. But maybe that was a tactic on his behalf (knowing the defence would call her anyway), so he'd be able to take the lead.

As I say I am going solely on what I've read of the case (which I know I shouldn't be doing)1111111 and am not suggesting for a second that I was correct but the way I read the initial reports of what was put to the IP was that a woman had physically entered the room, there had been some converasation about her joining in. That woman had then done something to make the IP think the woman was going to film her before the woman then left. The evidence the female witness seemed to give (and again I'm at pains to point out that I am only basing this on the very short reports I read on the case) was that she opened the door, could clearly see what was going on and quickly thereafter shut the door again.

Those are clear discrepancies that would warrant considerable cross examination if not to a lay person certainly to experienced counsel. Therefore I am of the opinion that one of three scenarios has arisen.

1. There is another witness to be called by the defence (which would explain the difference in what was put and what we heard)

2. They are the same woman but there has been a significant change in evidence between what she gave to police (which is what the defence would have put to the IP) and her evidence in the box. Although if this is the case I would have expected very lengthy cross examination.

3. The reports from court are missing something. The more I read the more convinced it's this one and I therefore have no idea if there still is another witness to go.

Also two other things strike me. 1 the prosecution wouldn't be any better able to take the lead. They would only call a witness who can provide credible material evidence. Calling a witness would also open them up to defence cross examination where the same strict rules about not leading witnesses do not apply.   Furthermore by my count and from what I've read (with the usual caveats) there were 4 women in the house. The IP and two of those women have given evidence does that not still leave one women (the one the witnesses we are talking about was said to be looking for)?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 15, 2018, 11:16:35 AM
I think it's the same woman David, because that exchange you mention took place with her, according to her comments to the other friend. I'm paraphrasing, but she said PJ made some comment to her about joining in, and she refused.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 11:17:41 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 11:13:13 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 15, 2018, 10:47:56 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 08:28:24 AM
I am reluctant to do this as it may be speculation but I think the women referred to by the defence last week as having been in the room is not the woman who has given evidence. I say this for two reasons.

1. What was reported to have been put to the IP is significantly different to the evidence reportedly given by the witness who has given evidence this week. Now that may well be because that witness had given a statement to the police the contents of which formed the basis of what was put to the IP but if that had happened then I would have expected lengthy cross examinations from the defence as to why the evidence differed. Reports have not suggested that occurred.

2. The way it was reported that the evidence was put to the IP made it seem like a defence witness was to be called when in fact we have only had prosecution witnesses so far.

As I say the above is purely on the basis of the coverage I have read of the case and could be wholly inaccurate and not necessarily due to inaccurate reporting simply because of the nuances of a criminal justice system not being fully understood by reporters.
99.9% sure you're not right here. This is the only witness. Reports said there were 4 women in the house, the witness, her 2 friends and the IP.

How do you think her evidence differed from what was expected?

The surprise to me was that the prosecution called her rather than the defense. But maybe that was a tactic on his behalf (knowing the defence would call her anyway), so he'd be able to take the lead.

As I say I am going solely on what I've read of the case (which I know I shouldn't be doing)1111111 and am not suggesting for a second that I was correct but the way I read the initial reports of what was put to the IP was that a woman had physically entered the room, there had been some converasation about her joining in. That woman had then done something to make the IP think the woman was going to film her before the woman then left. The evidence the female witness seemed to give (and again I'm at pains to point out that I am only basing this on the very short reports I read on the case) was that she opened the door, could clearly see what was going on and quickly thereafter shut the door again.

Those are clear discrepancies that would warrant considerable cross examination if not to a lay person certainly to experienced counsel. Therefore I am of the opinion that one of three scenarios has arisen.

1. There is another witness to be called by the defence (which would explain the difference in what was put and what we heard)

2. They are the same woman but there has been a significant change in evidence between what she gave to police (which is what the defence would have put to the IP) and her evidence in the box. Although if this is the case I would have expected very lengthy cross examination.

3. The reports from court are missing something. The more I read the more convinced it's this one and I therefore have no idea if there still is another witness to go.

Also two other things strike me. 1 the prosecution wouldn't be any better able to take the lead. They would only call a witness who can provide credible material evidence. Calling a witness would also open them up to defence cross examination where the same strict rules about not leading witnesses do not apply.   Furthermore by my count and from what I've read (with the usual caveats) there were 4 women in the house. The IP and two of those women have given evidence does that not still leave one women (the one the witnesses we are talking about was said to be looking for)?
Is the fourth woman the one who was conked out from drink and who the other two were looking for?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 15, 2018, 11:19:26 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 09:53:15 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 15, 2018, 08:58:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 07:46:44 AM
Crying or being annoyed in a taxi will not convince me if something bad happened..

Questions missed for taxi driver:  How often do you pick up couples late night or early hours of the morning where one or more of them appears to be upset and or sobbing or soiled their clothing?  What stood out for you on this occasion that was different from your previous experience?

Either by very condensed reporting or weak questioning by barrister, the taxi driver appears to have gone unchallenged in witness box.
Crying in a taxi late at night won't be much use.
I have often seen young girls bawling their eyes out late at night after drinking. There are loads of reasons that could be the cause.

He broke up with me. He danced with some slut, too much gin, he rode me, he didn't ride me.
The fun will start when or if the accused give evidence
Hang together or they'll all hang separately

True but how often does a man accompany a distressed girl, who he doesn't know from Adam, home in a taxi?

If I was at a party and a random girl got upset for no good reason, I'd have no problem calling a taxi for her but no chance I'd be going with her
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Ty4Sam on February 15, 2018, 11:20:34 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 11:13:13 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 15, 2018, 10:47:56 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 08:28:24 AM
I am reluctant to do this as it may be speculation but I think the women referred to by the defence last week as having been in the room is not the woman who has given evidence. I say this for two reasons.

1. What was reported to have been put to the IP is significantly different to the evidence reportedly given by the witness who has given evidence this week. Now that may well be because that witness had given a statement to the police the contents of which formed the basis of what was put to the IP but if that had happened then I would have expected lengthy cross examinations from the defence as to why the evidence differed. Reports have not suggested that occurred.

2. The way it was reported that the evidence was put to the IP made it seem like a defence witness was to be called when in fact we have only had prosecution witnesses so far.

As I say the above is purely on the basis of the coverage I have read of the case and could be wholly inaccurate and not necessarily due to inaccurate reporting simply because of the nuances of a criminal justice system not being fully understood by reporters.
99.9% sure you're not right here. This is the only witness. Reports said there were 4 women in the house, the witness, her 2 friends and the IP.

How do you think her evidence differed from what was expected?

The surprise to me was that the prosecution called her rather than the defense. But maybe that was a tactic on his behalf (knowing the defence would call her anyway), so he'd be able to take the lead.

As I say I am going solely on what I've read of the case (which I know I shouldn't be doing)1111111 and am not suggesting for a second that I was correct but the way I read the initial reports of what was put to the IP was that a woman had physically entered the room, there had been some converasation about her joining in. That woman had then done something to make the IP think the woman was going to film her before the woman then left. The evidence the female witness seemed to give (and again I'm at pains to point out that I am only basing this on the very short reports I read on the case) was that she opened the door, could clearly see what was going on and quickly thereafter shut the door again.

Those are clear discrepancies that would warrant considerable cross examination if not to a lay person certainly to experienced counsel. Therefore I am of the opinion that one of three scenarios has arisen.

1. There is another witness to be called by the defence (which would explain the difference in what was put and what we heard)

2. They are the same woman but there has been a significant change in evidence between what she gave to police (which is what the defence would have put to the IP) and her evidence in the box. Although if this is the case I would have expected very lengthy cross examination.

3. The reports from court are missing something. The more I read the more convinced it's this one and I therefore have no idea if there still is another witness to go.

Also two other things strike me. 1 the prosecution wouldn't be any better able to take the lead. They would only call a witness who can provide credible material evidence. Calling a witness would also open them up to defence cross examination where the same strict rules about not leading witnesses do not apply.   Furthermore by my count and from what I've read (with the usual caveats) there were 4 women in the house. The IP and two of those women have given evidence does that not still leave one women (the one the witnesses we are talking about was said to be looking for)?

I've read a report/transcript that this witness was asked by PJ "if she wanted to join in?", she responded "no" and left the room.

I've no doubt that it is number 3, there is no way a journalist tweeting can cover everything said plus, crucially, they can't give a visual on facial expressions/body language/tone of voice etc. which IMO is very important.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 11:21:34 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 10:51:05 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 10:17:35 AM
Apologies if this has been said already, but is it the case that the defendants don't have to take the stand.

If the prosecution calls them, can they refuse?

They are not compellable witnesses the prosecution can't call them. Whether they take the stand or not is entirely up to them although a jury can be invited to draw certain inferences if they choose not to take the stand. Interestingly in any multiple defendant case anything said by one co-accused about another (for example in an interview) is not admissible evidence unless that defendant takes the stand.
Ok. It seems odd to me that, on the assumption that they won't take the stand (obviously this is in no way known for certain), that their version of events has been made known when the IP is being cross-examined. Obviously this must be all above board. Just seems unusual to say that it's the defendant's case that he didn't have intercourse yet he doesn't have to take stand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 11:24:14 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 15, 2018, 11:16:35 AM
I think it's the same woman David, because that exchange you mention took place with her, according to her comments to the other friend. I'm paraphrasing, but she said PJ made some comment to her about joining in, and she refused.

As I say I was going solely on what I had read and didn't see that mentioned anywhere. So i shall stop speculating any further.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 15, 2018, 11:25:33 AM
does anyone posting here have any legal training whatsoever

I personally don't

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 15, 2018, 11:25:41 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 11:21:34 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 10:51:05 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 10:17:35 AM
Apologies if this has been said already, but is it the case that the defendants don't have to take the stand.

If the prosecution calls them, can they refuse?

They are not compellable witnesses the prosecution can't call them. Whether they take the stand or not is entirely up to them although a jury can be invited to draw certain inferences if they choose not to take the stand. Interestingly in any multiple defendant case anything said by one co-accused about another (for example in an interview) is not admissible evidence unless that defendant takes the stand.
Ok. It seems odd to me that, on the assumption that they won't take the stand (obviously this is in no way known for certain), that their version of events has been made known when the IP is being cross-examined. Obviously this must be all above board. Just seems unusual to say that it's the defendant's case that he didn't have intercourse yet he doesn't have to take stand.

This story was introduced by the prosecution according to an article on RTÉ, presumably from his statement to police?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 15, 2018, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: Orchard park on February 15, 2018, 11:25:33 AM
does anyone posting here have any legal training whatsoever

I personally don't

I used to watch Matlock when I was younger
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 15, 2018, 11:27:42 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 15, 2018, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: Orchard park on February 15, 2018, 11:25:33 AM
does anyone posting here have any legal training whatsoever

I personally don't

I used to watch Matlock when I was younger

more qualified than most here then
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 15, 2018, 11:28:45 AM
I believe we have at least two qualified legal professionals.

I am not one of them :)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 11:30:21 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 15, 2018, 11:25:41 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 11:21:34 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 10:51:05 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 10:17:35 AM
Apologies if this has been said already, but is it the case that the defendants don't have to take the stand.

If the prosecution calls them, can they refuse?

They are not compellable witnesses the prosecution can't call them. Whether they take the stand or not is entirely up to them although a jury can be invited to draw certain inferences if they choose not to take the stand. Interestingly in any multiple defendant case anything said by one co-accused about another (for example in an interview) is not admissible evidence unless that defendant takes the stand.
Ok. It seems odd to me that, on the assumption that they won't take the stand (obviously this is in no way known for certain), that their version of events has been made known when the IP is being cross-examined. Obviously this must be all above board. Just seems unusual to say that it's the defendant's case that he didn't have intercourse yet he doesn't have to take stand.

This story was introduced by the prosecution according to an article on RTÉ, presumably from his statement to police?

I doubt that because according to the RTE report it was introduced in re-examination the purpose of which is to adduce evidence based on what has arisen during the cross examination. Prosecution can't sit on evidence and then introduce it in re-examination after the witness has been crossed. So I think either that was incorrect reporting or that was introduced by the defence the week previous but for whatever reason wasn't reported.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 15, 2018, 11:37:27 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 11:30:21 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 15, 2018, 11:25:41 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 11:21:34 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 15, 2018, 10:51:05 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 10:17:35 AM
Apologies if this has been said already, but is it the case that the defendants don't have to take the stand.

If the prosecution calls them, can they refuse?

They are not compellable witnesses the prosecution can't call them. Whether they take the stand or not is entirely up to them although a jury can be invited to draw certain inferences if they choose not to take the stand. Interestingly in any multiple defendant case anything said by one co-accused about another (for example in an interview) is not admissible evidence unless that defendant takes the stand.
Ok. It seems odd to me that, on the assumption that they won't take the stand (obviously this is in no way known for certain), that their version of events has been made known when the IP is being cross-examined. Obviously this must be all above board. Just seems unusual to say that it's the defendant's case that he didn't have intercourse yet he doesn't have to take stand.

This story was introduced by the prosecution according to an article on RTÉ, presumably from his statement to police?

I doubt that because according to the RTE report it was introduced in re-examination the purpose of which is to adduce evidence based on what has arisen during the cross examination. Prosecution can't sit on evidence and then introduce it in re-examination after the witness has been crossed. So I think either that was incorrect reporting or that was introduced by the defence the week previous but for whatever reason wasn't reported.

Oh right, fair enough. I was taking it from about halfway down this article:

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0213/940392-belfast-rape-trial/

I guess it goes to show the difficulty of trying to judge any case on necessarily brief news reports


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 11:52:32 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 15, 2018, 11:19:26 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 09:53:15 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 15, 2018, 08:58:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 07:46:44 AM
Crying or being annoyed in a taxi will not convince me if something bad happened..

Questions missed for taxi driver:  How often do you pick up couples late night or early hours of the morning where one or more of them appears to be upset and or sobbing or soiled their clothing?  What stood out for you on this occasion that was different from your previous experience?

Either by very condensed reporting or weak questioning by barrister, the taxi driver appears to have gone unchallenged in witness box.
Crying in a taxi late at night won't be much use.
I have often seen young girls bawling their eyes out late at night after drinking. There are loads of reasons that could be the cause.

He broke up with me. He danced with some slut, too much gin, he rode me, he didn't ride me.
The fun will start when or if the accused give evidence
Hang together or they'll all hang separately

True but how often does a man accompany a distressed girl, who he doesn't know from Adam, home in a taxi?

If I was at a party and a random girl got upset for no good reason, I'd have no problem calling a taxi for her but no chance I'd be going with her

He said he'd call her tomorrow, so did he have the number of a random person or someone he knew?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 15, 2018, 12:09:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 11:52:32 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 15, 2018, 11:19:26 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 09:53:15 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 15, 2018, 08:58:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 07:46:44 AM
Crying or being annoyed in a taxi will not convince me if something bad happened..

Questions missed for taxi driver:  How often do you pick up couples late night or early hours of the morning where one or more of them appears to be upset and or sobbing or soiled their clothing?  What stood out for you on this occasion that was different from your previous experience?

Either by very condensed reporting or weak questioning by barrister, the taxi driver appears to have gone unchallenged in witness box.
Crying in a taxi late at night won't be much use.
I have often seen young girls bawling their eyes out late at night after drinking. There are loads of reasons that could be the cause.

He broke up with me. He danced with some slut, too much gin, he rode me, he didn't ride me.
The fun will start when or if the accused give evidence
Hang together or they'll all hang separately

True but how often does a man accompany a distressed girl, who he doesn't know from Adam, home in a taxi?

If I was at a party and a random girl got upset for no good reason, I'd have no problem calling a taxi for her but no chance I'd be going with her

He said he'd call her tomorrow, so did he have the number of a random person or someone he knew?

I don't get it - are you saying she wasn't just a random girl to the defendant who brought her home?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 12:19:45 PM
There's consistency in the prosecution case but beyond reasonable doubt, not so sure.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 12:20:25 PM
I think I can recall that he said he'd phone her in the morning to see if shes ok?  The person who went home with her in the taxi is the one being done for withholding information? Who the girl had said in court that he was nice to her and thanked him for being in the taxi with her?

Again all secondhand stuff, I just wish Syferus would tell us everything
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 12:43:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 12:20:25 PM
I think I can recall that he said he'd phone her in the morning to see if shes ok?  The person who went home with her in the taxi is the one being done for withholding information? Who the girl had said in court that he was nice to her and thanked him for being in the taxi with her?

Again all secondhand stuff, I just wish Syferus would tell us everything

He's too busy advising Arlene on the way forward
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 15, 2018, 12:55:14 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 12:20:25 PM
I think I can recall that he said he'd phone her in the morning to see if shes ok?  The person who went home with her in the taxi is the one being done for withholding information? Who the girl had said in court that he was nice to her and thanked him for being in the taxi with her?

Again all secondhand stuff, I just wish Syferus would tell us everything
I thought it was clear the girl knew nobody, but she gave Defendant 4 her number when he asked her so that he could check in on her the following day.
I don't think it was unusual for him to get in a taxi with her if she was upset. They presumably chatted at some stage downstairs earlier in the night, even if just a hello. There were only about 8 people at the house I think. And it may not have been far out of his way as the same taxi then brought him home. But I do think he feared something bad had happened, although I don't think he witnessed anything so couldnt be sure one way or the other.

Presumably the police will give evidence at some stage as to why they think he obstructed them. Nothing about that so far that I've seen.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 15, 2018, 12:57:04 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 15, 2018, 11:19:26 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 09:53:15 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 15, 2018, 08:58:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 07:46:44 AM
Crying or being annoyed in a taxi will not convince me if something bad happened..

Questions missed for taxi driver:  How often do you pick up couples late night or early hours of the morning where one or more of them appears to be upset and or sobbing or soiled their clothing?  What stood out for you on this occasion that was different from your previous experience?

Either by very condensed reporting or weak questioning by barrister, the taxi driver appears to have gone unchallenged in witness box.
Crying in a taxi late at night won't be much use.
I have often seen young girls bawling their eyes out late at night after drinking. There are loads of reasons that could be the cause.

He broke up with me. He danced with some slut, too much gin, he rode me, he didn't ride me.
The fun will start when or if the accused give evidence
Hang together or they'll all hang separately

True but how often does a man accompany a distressed girl, who he doesn't know from Adam, home in a taxi?

If I was at a party and a random girl got upset for no good reason, I'd have no problem calling a taxi for her but no chance I'd be going with her
A woman in distress, crying in a taxi on the way home in the early hours does not mean much on its own
but in the context of a rape allegation, it does have obvious value.

If she had been joking and laughing on the phone to one of her friends, you can be sure that demeanor would be up for questioning by the defence team and most probably social media.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 15, 2018, 01:00:42 PM
The police evidence will obviously be huge. Looks to me like the defence are going to have to say the lads panicked when they were brought in for questioning........and I think they're all going to have to take the stand to give their "real" version of what happened. They'll have a job to be as convincing as the alleged victim.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 15, 2018, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 15, 2018, 01:00:42 PM
The police evidence will obviously be huge. Looks to me like the defence are going to have to say the lads panicked when they were brought in for questioning........and I think they're all going to have to take the stand to give their "real" version of what happened. They'll have a job to be as convincing as the alleged victim.
Lawyer friend told me that PJ just submitted a written statement, didn't do a police interview.

Makes it strange that he would deny the act.  I wonder did he have a gf and if that influenced his statement!?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 15, 2018, 01:14:44 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 15, 2018, 01:00:42 PM
The police evidence will obviously be huge. Looks to me like the defence are going to have to say the lads panicked when they were brought in for questioning........and I think they're all going to have to take the stand to give their "real" version of what happened. They'll have a job to be as convincing as the alleged victim.
The defense team has already blundered in the questioning of the woman witness, there is now a witness who clearly contradicts  Paddy Jackson in an important aspect  (albeit not crucial)  of his statement.
Seeing as Paddy's lawyer emphasised  very clearly in court Paddy's version of that event and got shot down by the witness, it would look very poorly if PJ does not take the stand and defend himself.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 01:23:09 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 15, 2018, 11:28:45 AM
I believe we have at least two qualified legal professionals.

I am not one of them :)

Are you Max from Hart to Hart!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 01:30:38 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 15, 2018, 01:14:44 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 15, 2018, 01:00:42 PM
The police evidence will obviously be huge. Looks to me like the defence are going to have to say the lads panicked when they were brought in for questioning........and I think they're all going to have to take the stand to give their "real" version of what happened. They'll have a job to be as convincing as the alleged victim.
The defense team has already blundered in the questioning of the woman witness, there is now a witness who clearly contradicts  Paddy Jackson in an important aspect  (albeit not crucial)  of his statement.
Seeing as Paddy's lawyer emphasised  very clearly in court Paddy's version of that event and got shot down by the witness, it would look very poorly if PJ does not take the stand and defend himself.

The opposite inference is usually drawn. Typically the defendant will not take the stand.

Remember the defendant is only there to rebut the prosecution case. Therefore if they contend that the prosecution case isn't strong enough they don't take stand. And if they do take the stand they will only be allowed to rebut the prosecution case. If they veer off into putting forward alternative stories or unconnected positive images of themselves they will get pulled up by the judge and that plays badly with a jury
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LeoMc on February 15, 2018, 01:36:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 11:52:32 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 15, 2018, 11:19:26 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 09:53:15 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 15, 2018, 08:58:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 07:46:44 AM
Crying or being annoyed in a taxi will not convince me if something bad happened..

Questions missed for taxi driver:  How often do you pick up couples late night or early hours of the morning where one or more of them appears to be upset and or sobbing or soiled their clothing?  What stood out for you on this occasion that was different from your previous experience?

Either by very condensed reporting or weak questioning by barrister, the taxi driver appears to have gone unchallenged in witness box.
Crying in a taxi late at night won't be much use.
I have often seen young girls bawling their eyes out late at night after drinking. There are loads of reasons that could be the cause.

He broke up with me. He danced with some slut, too much gin, he rode me, he didn't ride me.
The fun will start when or if the accused give evidence
Hang together or they'll all hang separately

True but how often does a man accompany a distressed girl, who he doesn't know from Adam, home in a taxi?

If I was at a party and a random girl got upset for no good reason, I'd have no problem calling a taxi for her but no chance I'd be going with her

He said he'd call her tomorrow, so did he have the number of a random person or someone he knew?
I took it from the reporting that he made that comment on the phone to one of the other accused.
"She's with me now. She's not good. I'll call you in the morning". @FrankGreaney.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 01:42:11 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on February 15, 2018, 01:36:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 11:52:32 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 15, 2018, 11:19:26 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 09:53:15 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 15, 2018, 08:58:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 15, 2018, 07:46:44 AM
Crying or being annoyed in a taxi will not convince me if something bad happened..

Questions missed for taxi driver:  How often do you pick up couples late night or early hours of the morning where one or more of them appears to be upset and or sobbing or soiled their clothing?  What stood out for you on this occasion that was different from your previous experience?

Either by very condensed reporting or weak questioning by barrister, the taxi driver appears to have gone unchallenged in witness box.
Crying in a taxi late at night won't be much use.
I have often seen young girls bawling their eyes out late at night after drinking. There are loads of reasons that could be the cause.

He broke up with me. He danced with some slut, too much gin, he rode me, he didn't ride me.
The fun will start when or if the accused give evidence
Hang together or they'll all hang separately

True but how often does a man accompany a distressed girl, who he doesn't know from Adam, home in a taxi?

If I was at a party and a random girl got upset for no good reason, I'd have no problem calling a taxi for her but no chance I'd be going with her

He said he'd call her tomorrow, so did he have the number of a random person or someone he knew?
I took it from the reporting that he made that comment on the phone to one of the other accused.
"She's with me now. She's not good. I'll call you in the morning". @FrankGreaney.

There ya go, thats more believable ... but if you were raped by three guys would you get in the taxi with their mate?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 15, 2018, 01:51:45 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 01:30:38 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 15, 2018, 01:14:44 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 15, 2018, 01:00:42 PM
The police evidence will obviously be huge. Looks to me like the defence are going to have to say the lads panicked when they were brought in for questioning........and I think they're all going to have to take the stand to give their "real" version of what happened. They'll have a job to be as convincing as the alleged victim.
The defense team has already blundered in the questioning of the woman witness, there is now a witness who clearly contradicts  Paddy Jackson in an important aspect  (albeit not crucial)  of his statement.
Seeing as Paddy's lawyer emphasised  very clearly in court Paddy's version of that event and got shot down by the witness, it would look very poorly if PJ does not take the stand and defend himself.

The opposite inference is usually drawn. Typically the defendant will not take the stand.

Remember the defendant is only there to rebut the prosecution case. Therefore if they contend that the prosecution case isn't strong enough they don't take stand. And if they do take the stand they will only be allowed to rebut the prosecution case. If they veer off into putting forward alternative stories or unconnected positive images of themselves they will get pulled up by the judge and that plays badly with a jury
I would have thought that the witness who shot down the defence lawyers question (re penetration sex) was strong enough to question the credibility of PJ´s statement,  as it stands now PJ's statement has a significant unbelievable factor. But perhaps the defence team will try to repair that in other ways.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 15, 2018, 02:09:09 PM
I don't understand how someone who has been charged with a crime and is being prosecuted for it cant be called by the prosecution. Can someone try and explain it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 15, 2018, 02:10:24 PM
Looks like the defence QC had another bad day today with the alleged victims friend. Odd line of questioning.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on February 15, 2018, 02:09:09 PM
I don't understand how someone who has been charged with a crime and is being prosecuted for it cant be called by the prosecution. Can someone try and explain it?

Nobody can be compelled to give evidence against themselves
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 15, 2018, 02:14:21 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on February 15, 2018, 02:09:09 PM
I don't understand how someone who has been charged with a crime and is being prosecuted for it cant be called by the prosecution. Can someone try and explain it?
I think one of the legal eagles on here explained it.  Our whole justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty.  The burden of proof  is on the prosecution to determine you are guilty.  Not you to prove that you are innocent. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:15:16 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 15, 2018, 01:51:45 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 01:30:38 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 15, 2018, 01:14:44 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 15, 2018, 01:00:42 PM
The police evidence will obviously be huge. Looks to me like the defence are going to have to say the lads panicked when they were brought in for questioning........and I think they're all going to have to take the stand to give their "real" version of what happened. They'll have a job to be as convincing as the alleged victim.
The defense team has already blundered in the questioning of the woman witness, there is now a witness who clearly contradicts  Paddy Jackson in an important aspect  (albeit not crucial)  of his statement.
Seeing as Paddy's lawyer emphasised  very clearly in court Paddy's version of that event and got shot down by the witness, it would look very poorly if PJ does not take the stand and defend himself.

The opposite inference is usually drawn. Typically the defendant will not take the stand.

Remember the defendant is only there to rebut the prosecution case. Therefore if they contend that the prosecution case isn't strong enough they don't take stand. And if they do take the stand they will only be allowed to rebut the prosecution case. If they veer off into putting forward alternative stories or unconnected positive images of themselves they will get pulled up by the judge and that plays badly with a jury
I would have thought that the witness who shot down the defence lawyers question (re penetration sex) was strong enough to question the credibility of PJ´s statement,  as it stands now PJ's statement has a significant unbelievable factor. But perhaps the defence team will try to repair that in other ways.

Shot down??

Did she say she had a clear view of penetrative sex by PJ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 15, 2018, 02:27:20 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 15, 2018, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 15, 2018, 01:00:42 PM
The police evidence will obviously be huge. Looks to me like the defence are going to have to say the lads panicked when they were brought in for questioning........and I think they're all going to have to take the stand to give their "real" version of what happened. They'll have a job to be as convincing as the alleged victim.
Lawyer friend told me that PJ just submitted a written statement, didn't do a police interview.

Makes it strange that he would deny the act.  I wonder did he have a gf and if that influenced his statement!?

think he has bigger worries now than a girlfriend
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:29:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

And does that "shoot down" the defendants contention that he did not penetrate her with his penis?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 15, 2018, 02:32:40 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:29:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

And does that "shoot down" the defendants contention that he did not penetrate her with his penis?

It contradicts his evidence and corroborates the alleged victims evidence. I'd say that's unwelcome for the defence to put it mildly.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 15, 2018, 02:32:40 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:29:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

And does that "shoot down" the defendants contention that he did not penetrate her with his penis?

It contradicts his evidence and corroborates the alleged victims evidence. I'd say that's unwelcome for the defence to put it mildly.

Unwelcome we can agree on but contradicts I think not.

The defendant did not say there was zero sexual activity. I think he admits to a specific act. He denies penetrating her vagina with his penis. The witness in the room did not offer anything definite to deny this. Her evidence seems to be confined to the area of consent. The case is about consent. I would think that the specific defendant would have preferred her to give a clear statement confirming his contention about t penetration ( which the case is not about) but would be happy with her evidence on the issue of consent (which the case is about)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Even if there was? Would that prove penetration?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 15, 2018, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 15, 2018, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 15, 2018, 01:00:42 PM
The police evidence will obviously be huge. Looks to me like the defence are going to have to say the lads panicked when they were brought in for questioning........and I think they're all going to have to take the stand to give their "real" version of what happened. They'll have a job to be as convincing as the alleged victim.
Lawyer friend told me that PJ just submitted a written statement, didn't do a police interview.

Makes it strange that he would deny the act.  I wonder did he have a gf and if that influenced his statement!?

Knowing who his Solicitors are that's exactly what I would have expected and exactly what should have been done. I think I said that was the likely situation and the statement would contain his denials of the allegations and that if he had sex it was fully consensual. That is the only way you deal with this type of an allegation.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:54:27 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on February 15, 2018, 02:27:20 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 15, 2018, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 15, 2018, 01:00:42 PM
The police evidence will obviously be huge. Looks to me like the defence are going to have to say the lads panicked when they were brought in for questioning........and I think they're all going to have to take the stand to give their "real" version of what happened. They'll have a job to be as convincing as the alleged victim.
Lawyer friend told me that PJ just submitted a written statement, didn't do a police interview.

Makes it strange that he would deny the act.  I wonder did he have a gf and if that influenced his statement!?

think he has bigger worries now than a girlfriend

Of course he does. That's not the topic though - if he had sex with her (as at least two people have claimed, one of them accusing him of rape) why would he lie about it to police? Maybe because he was a young lad who panicked, who knows? I can't imagine Jackson ever spent much time in police stations growing up or had much reason to ever suspect he'd face going to prison. Who knows how he'd react when suddenly faced with that?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Even if there was? Would that prove penetration?

It doesn't "prove" anything. It is highly suggestive of something. It's up for jury to decide if Jackson thrusting at her from behind, naked, was penetrating her or just doing a bit of dry humping at the time.

Given Jackson's position is that all he did was consensually "digitally penetrate" her, it hardly looks good though, does it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Even if there was? Would that prove penetration?
Beyond reasonable doubt........maybe.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 15, 2018, 03:05:57 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:54:27 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on February 15, 2018, 02:27:20 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 15, 2018, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 15, 2018, 01:00:42 PM
The police evidence will obviously be huge. Looks to me like the defence are going to have to say the lads panicked when they were brought in for questioning........and I think they're all going to have to take the stand to give their "real" version of what happened. They'll have a job to be as convincing as the alleged victim.
Lawyer friend told me that PJ just submitted a written statement, didn't do a police interview.

Makes it strange that he would deny the act.  I wonder did he have a gf and if that influenced his statement!?

think he has bigger worries now than a girlfriend

Of course he does. That's not the topic though - if he had sex with her (as at least two people have claimed, one of them accusing him of rape) why would he lie about it to police? Maybe because he was a young lad who panicked, who knows? I can't imagine Jackson ever spent much time in police stations growing up or had much reason to ever suspect he'd face going to prison. Who knows how he'd react when suddenly faced with that?
Was he questioned by police or did he say no comment and then issue a statement denying having full sex?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 03:15:16 PM
I've no idea, but the prosecution contended in court that Jackson's case was that he consensually digitally penetrated her.

If that wasn't his case, it would be pretty daft for the prosecution to suggest it was.

What I'm getting at is, one way or the other, that's his case!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 15, 2018, 03:42:57 PM
Is there an age limit for GAA Board membership?

Wonder what 10 or 11 year old children make of all this content.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 15, 2018, 03:46:04 PM
what in under God would a 10 year old be on this board for?  :o
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 15, 2018, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 15, 2018, 03:42:57 PM
Is there an age limit for GAA Board membership?

Wonder what 10 or 11 year old children make of all this content.

I'd be more interested in you responding to how you'd react if it was your daughter in the witness box and if you'd be so willing to demean her and make light of the situation.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on February 15, 2018, 04:34:26 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on February 15, 2018, 04:14:16 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 15, 2018, 03:46:04 PM
what in under God would a 10 year old be on this board for?  :o

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mjhsxkquvJk/TaMUGx3ylvI/AAAAAAAABBQ/00SKpc1tNZU/s1600/troll+kid.jpg)

So that's what Syfres looks like, I had him a bit younger than that
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 04:37:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.
I would say that if her comments re 100% seeing sex are accepted then her comments re not seeing distress or no consent must be accepted.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 15, 2018, 04:39:14 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 04:37:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.
I would say that if her comments re 100% seeing sex are accepted then her comments re not seeing distress or no consent must be accepted.

why? One is fact, one is opinion???
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 05:09:40 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 04:37:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.
I would say that if her comments re 100% seeing sex are accepted then her comments re not seeing distress or no consent must be accepted.

Why? One is clearly more subjective than the other.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 15, 2018, 05:26:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 15, 2018, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 15, 2018, 03:42:57 PM
Is there an age limit for GAA Board membership?

Wonder what 10 or 11 year old children make of all this content.

I'd be more interested in you responding to how you'd react if it was your daughter in the witness box and if you'd be so willing to demean her and make light of the situation.

And how would you react if it was your son in the accused box? Would you have him in jail on day 1 of the trial?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 15, 2018, 06:05:15 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 15, 2018, 02:32:40 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:29:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

And does that "shoot down" the defendants contention that he did not penetrate her with his penis?

It contradicts his evidence and corroborates the alleged victims evidence. I'd say that's unwelcome for the defence to put it mildly.

Unwelcome we can agree on but contradicts I think not.

The defendant did not say there was zero sexual activity. I think he admits to a specific act. He denies penetrating her vagina with his penis. The witness in the room did not offer anything definite to deny this. Her evidence seems to be confined to the area of consent. The case is about consent. I would think that the specific defendant would have preferred her to give a clear statement confirming his contention about t penetration ( which the case is not about) but would be happy with her evidence on the issue of consent (which the case is about)
The case is about consent and credibility and believably of the accused is a part of it.

The witness did contradict Jackson's statement that he did not penetrate her. She denied it by asserting the opposite, that's the definition of a contradiction.  In reply to questions, 'she was  "100pc" positive she had witnessed Mr Jackson having penetrative sex with the alleged victim.' "It wasn't assumption", she told him, adamant and almost in surprise.
"It was 100pc, I saw sex, from the movement."

There were no follow up questions quoted from the defence,  the defence did not pursue the questioning on this point or nothing much of significance. That's how it stands now. The jury are left with that witness' statement delivered with an adamant certainty, her testimony now assumes a higher value than something written by Jackson, under no pressure of cross examination.
Should Jackson fail to avail of his opportunity to answer questions in court and contest these contradictions, it will probably reflect poorly on his statement.


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Even if there was? Would that prove penetration?

It doesn't "prove" anything. It is highly suggestive of something. It's up for jury to decide if Jackson thrusting at her from behind, naked, was penetrating her or just doing a bit of dry humping at the time.

Given Jackson's position is that all he did was consensually "digitally penetrate" her, it hardly looks good though, does it?

I didn't realise that his admission of fingering her also included a statement that he didn't dry hump her. I'll admit I haven't read everything on the trial though
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 06:27:39 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Even if there was? Would that prove penetration?
Beyond reasonable doubt........maybe.

Why would dry humping be less likely?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 06:34:52 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 15, 2018, 06:05:15 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 15, 2018, 02:32:40 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:29:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

And does that "shoot down" the defendants contention that he did not penetrate her with his penis?

It contradicts his evidence and corroborates the alleged victims evidence. I'd say that's unwelcome for the defence to put it mildly.

Unwelcome we can agree on but contradicts I think not.

The defendant did not say there was zero sexual activity. I think he admits to a specific act. He denies penetrating her vagina with his penis. The witness in the room did not offer anything definite to deny this. Her evidence seems to be confined to the area of consent. The case is about consent. I would think that the specific defendant would have preferred her to give a clear statement confirming his contention about t penetration ( which the case is not about) but would be happy with her evidence on the issue of consent (which the case is about)
The case is about consent and credibility and believably of the accused is a part of it.

The witness did contradict Jackson's statement that he did not penetrate her. She denied it by asserting the opposite, that's the definition of a contradiction.  In reply to questions, 'she was  "100pc" positive she had witnessed Mr Jackson having penetrative sex with the alleged victim.' "It wasn't assumption", she told him, adamant and almost in surprise.
"It was 100pc, I saw sex, from the movement."

There were no follow up questions quoted from the defence,  the defence did not pursue the questioning on this point or nothing much of significance. That's how it stands now. The jury are left with that witness' statement delivered with an adamant certainty, her testimony now assumes a higher value than something written by Jackson, under no pressure of cross examination.
Should Jackson fail to avail of his opportunity to answer questions in court and contest these contradictions, it will probably reflect poorly on his statement.

What's the source of the precise quotations and the "almost in surprise" bits?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 06:49:06 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 05:09:40 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 04:37:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.
I would say that if her comments re 100% seeing sex are accepted then her comments re not seeing distress or no consent must be accepted.

Why? One is clearly more subjective than the other.
Agreed but will a 9/3 male female jury be as forensic in deliberation
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 15, 2018, 06:50:53 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 06:27:39 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Even if there was? Would that prove penetration?
Beyond reasonable doubt........maybe.

Why would dry humping be less likely?

"dry humping" requires clothing to be between the flesh contact. Check out Charleton Commission
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on February 16, 2018, 12:56:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 06:27:39 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Even if there was? Would that prove penetration?
Beyond reasonable doubt........maybe.

Why would dry humping be less likely?
I don't have any statistics but I'd say if a heterosexual man is naked and a naked lady is in the position that this lady is alleged to have been in then the man is much, much, much more likely to have intercourse with her than to "dry hump" her. Now maybe the jury and the world at large think differently and maybe someone will give evidence of Jackson's love for dry humping. I doubt it though. If dry humping was his thing, he'd probably keep his clothes on, in case he got accused of rape or something.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 16, 2018, 01:32:55 PM
Trial and comments here affirm my original comment... better if possible to sort it out yourself with a baseball bat rather than this retrauma and intrusion
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on February 16, 2018, 02:38:44 PM
Quote from: hardstation on February 16, 2018, 02:17:57 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2018, 12:56:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 06:27:39 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Even if there was? Would that prove penetration?
Beyond reasonable doubt........maybe.

Why would dry humping be less likely?
I don't have any statistics but I'd say if a heterosexual man is naked and a naked lady is in the position that this lady is alleged to have been in then the man is much, much, much more likely to have intercourse with her than to "dry hump" her. Now maybe the jury and the world at large think differently and maybe someone will give evidence of Jackson's love for dry humping. I doubt it though. If dry humping was his thing, he'd probably keep his clothes on, in case he got accused of rape or something.
He could have had a bit too much to drink and despite his best efforts, it was all he could muster.
So attempted rape perhaps?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 16, 2018, 02:49:16 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2018, 02:38:44 PM
Quote from: hardstation on February 16, 2018, 02:17:57 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2018, 12:56:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 06:27:39 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Even if there was? Would that prove penetration?
Beyond reasonable doubt........maybe.

Why would dry humping be less likely?
I don't have any statistics but I'd say if a heterosexual man is naked and a naked lady is in the position that this lady is alleged to have been in then the man is much, much, much more likely to have intercourse with her than to "dry hump" her. Now maybe the jury and the world at large think differently and maybe someone will give evidence of Jackson's love for dry humping. I doubt it though. If dry humping was his thing, he'd probably keep his clothes on, in case he got accused of rape or something.
He could have had a bit too much to drink and despite his best efforts, it was all he could muster.
So attempted rape perhaps?

I am open to correction here by my learned friend Mr McKeown but I don't think there is actually any offence of attempted rape. As it is such a 'specific' action it is very hard to classify attempted rape and in the event of an actual 'attempted' rape that doesn't fulfill the criteria I would imagine the only way thing they can be charge with is sexual assault.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on February 16, 2018, 02:50:48 PM
My comment was partially tongue in cheek in response to a comment of similar nature.  Not appropriate given the context, I admit.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 16, 2018, 02:55:52 PM
Hardstation I actually was thinking that myself. Maybe....long night drinking, maybe wee PJ had no lead in his pencil. Was trying his best but as the crime is so specific then if there is no penile penetration then there is no rape, end of story. If he couldn't get it up he cannot be convicted of it. The witness may think she has seen 'sex' but in the blink of an eye did she see what was actually happening....no. It is getting more difficult for the prosecution I feel.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TyroneOnlooker on February 16, 2018, 03:44:09 PM
PJ is denying there was any sex yet witness says she saw him  IP thrusting in sex movements. Did the witness say that she saw where both his hands were placed? Trying to look at the rationale of this and without being too graphic, is it outside the realms of possibility that there was no penile penetration by PJ but he was using his fingers/hand/fist? It might explain (1) why PJ is denying penile sex (2) the injuries to IP (im sure a rough fisting could do as much damage as rough sex. In a drunken/traumatic state and not facing away from PJ, the IP could have been mistaken into thinking it was his penis rather than hand/fist (no need for jokes about size etc)

Maybe clutching at straws but can't understand why PJ and witness could be contradictory otherwise.

If that is the case, is that still rape or just sexual assault?

Also, today's testimony from the policeman who interviewed Harrison and Harrison's statement appear to differ somewhat from the taxi driver account in terms of IP crying, Harrison's actions on phone etc.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 16, 2018, 03:48:02 PM
Harrison is basically highlighting why he was charged with withholding information and obstructing justice. If you can't put these pieces together and figure out something rotten happened there's no convincing you.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 16, 2018, 03:52:59 PM
Things are looking bad for Lying Paddy Jackson, Slithery Stuart Olding, Mendacious McIlroy and Tall Tales Harrison.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 16, 2018, 03:54:53 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 16, 2018, 02:55:52 PM
Hardstation I actually was thinking that myself. Maybe....long night drinking, maybe wee PJ had no lead in his pencil. Was trying his best but as the crime is so specific then if there is no penile penetration then there is no rape, end of story. If he couldn't get it up he cannot be convicted of it. The witness may think she has seen 'sex' but in the blink of an eye did she see what was actually happening....no. It is getting more difficult for the prosecution I feel.

Did the girl who glimpsed in the room not say she saw one hand on the IP's hip,but couldn't see the other?

There was also another statement from the IP to PJ about putting a condom on at least. She went for the morning after pill so she was convinced that penile penetration had occurred.

Paddy must have thick fingers.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 16, 2018, 03:58:40 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 16, 2018, 03:54:53 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 16, 2018, 02:55:52 PM
Hardstation I actually was thinking that myself. Maybe....long night drinking, maybe wee PJ had no lead in his pencil. Was trying his best but as the crime is so specific then if there is no penile penetration then there is no rape, end of story. If he couldn't get it up he cannot be convicted of it. The witness may think she has seen 'sex' but in the blink of an eye did she see what was actually happening....no. It is getting more difficult for the prosecution I feel.

Did the girl who glimpsed in the room not say she saw one hand on the IP's hip,but couldn't see the other?

There was also another statement from the IP to PJ about putting a condom on at least. She went for the morning after pill so she was convinced that penile penetration had occurred.

Paddy must have thick fingers.

May well all be true. Haven't seen all the evidence. The reality is that medical evidence will be key here
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on February 16, 2018, 06:03:22 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2018, 02:38:44 PM
Quote from: hardstation on February 16, 2018, 02:17:57 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 16, 2018, 12:56:43 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 06:27:39 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 15, 2018, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 15, 2018, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 15, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 15, 2018, 02:24:22 PM
She said she 100% saw sex. She didn't walk up and specifically ensure and make note of his penis penetrating her vagina.

Was there not a mention of thrusting?

Even if there was? Would that prove penetration?
Beyond reasonable doubt........maybe.

Why would dry humping be less likely?
I don't have any statistics but I'd say if a heterosexual man is naked and a naked lady is in the position that this lady is alleged to have been in then the man is much, much, much more likely to have intercourse with her than to "dry hump" her. Now maybe the jury and the world at large think differently and maybe someone will give evidence of Jackson's love for dry humping. I doubt it though. If dry humping was his thing, he'd probably keep his clothes on, in case he got accused of rape or something.
He could have had a bit too much to drink and despite his best efforts, it was all he could muster.
So attempted rape perhaps?

Or attempted dry humping?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 16, 2018, 07:51:58 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 15, 2018, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 15, 2018, 03:42:57 PM
Is there an age limit for GAA Board membership?

Wonder what 10 or 11 year old children make of all this content.

I'd be more interested in you responding to how you'd react if it was your daughter in the witness box and if you'd be so willing to demean her and make light of the situation.

Listen here Syferus son, you have issues.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 16, 2018, 08:01:41 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 16, 2018, 07:51:58 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 15, 2018, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 15, 2018, 03:42:57 PM
Is there an age limit for GAA Board membership?

Wonder what 10 or 11 year old children make of all this content.

I'd be more interested in you responding to how you'd react if it was your daughter in the witness box and if you'd be so willing to demean her and make light of the situation.

Listen here Syferus son, you have issues.

Nice attempt to avoid the point. You told us enough about yourself with your silence so it doesn't matter at this point.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 16, 2018, 08:35:41 PM
I think he threw the question back at you, would you be as quick to judge your own son if he found himself in same position..

I don't think you answerd though
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 16, 2018, 09:30:59 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 16, 2018, 08:01:41 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 16, 2018, 07:51:58 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 15, 2018, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 15, 2018, 03:42:57 PM
Is there an age limit for GAA Board membership?

Wonder what 10 or 11 year old children make of all this content.

I'd be more interested in you responding to how you'd react if it was your daughter in the witness box and if you'd be so willing to demean her and make light of the situation.

Listen here Syferus son, you have issues.

Nice attempt to avoid the point. You told us enough about yourself with your silence so it doesn't matter at this point.

I don't have a daughter.

Hey, my dad died a few years ago, yet I regularly craic jokes about his death and funeral. Am I a very very very bad person in Syferus's book?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on February 16, 2018, 10:46:06 PM
Probably a good time to close the thread....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 16, 2018, 11:03:39 PM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on February 16, 2018, 10:46:06 PM
Probably a good time to close the thread....

Why?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 16, 2018, 11:20:21 PM
Sher aren't there 2 more weeks left?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 17, 2018, 09:04:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 16, 2018, 08:35:41 PM
I think he threw the question back at you, would you be as quick to judge your own son if he found himself in same position..

I don't think you answerd though

I asked him.that..think he must have me ignored.  Regularly challenged and can't answer. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 17, 2018, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 17, 2018, 09:04:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 16, 2018, 08:35:41 PM
I think he threw the question back at you, would you be as quick to judge your own son if he found himself in same position..

I don't think you answerd though

I asked him.that..think he must have me ignored.  Regularly challenged and can't answer.

What is the point of the hypothetical questions?

Okay, if it was my son in the dock then I would be disappointed, and I would want proper justice to take place and if he went to prison then accept it but he is still my son.

Would I craic jokes about it? No.

Would I object if others craiced jokes about it? No.

Have I answered everyone's questions?

Can someone explain exactly what I have done wrong?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 17, 2018, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 17, 2018, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 17, 2018, 09:04:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 16, 2018, 08:35:41 PM
I think he threw the question back at you, would you be as quick to judge your own son if he found himself in same position..

I don't think you answerd though

I asked him.that..think he must have me ignored.  Regularly challenged and can't answer.

What is the point of the hypothetical questions?

Okay, if it was my son in the dock then I would be disappointed, and I would want proper justice to take place and if he went to prison then accept it but he is still my son.

Would I craic jokes about it? No.

Would I object if others craiced jokes about it? No.

Have I answered everyone's questions?

Can someone explain exactly what I have done wrong?

This was for Syferus, Orior
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 19, 2018, 01:31:26 PM
Just seen the lads in Victoria Square, a sorry sight they look.. how's this morning proceedings go?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Targetman on February 19, 2018, 01:37:49 PM
Don't think anything is happening today, court resumes tomorrow
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 19, 2018, 01:44:59 PM
Quote from: Targetman on February 19, 2018, 01:37:49 PM
Don't think anything is happening today, court resumes tomorrow

They came in from the court direction, two had suits on as if they'd been attending court
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on February 19, 2018, 01:50:40 PM
Frank Greaney not tweeting and its so quiet here I presumed it was a day off
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hardy on February 19, 2018, 02:11:50 PM
A juror has gone to a funeral. Just legal arguments today without the jury.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 20, 2018, 09:04:58 AM
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Link on February 20, 2018, 09:28:36 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 20, 2018, 09:04:58 AM
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/

is this the "dark things" line when they're dressed in ulster gear?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 20, 2018, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 20, 2018, 09:04:58 AM
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/

Video of what?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 20, 2018, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 20, 2018, 09:04:58 AM
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/

Video of what?

I'd imagine of the bedroom variety
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on February 20, 2018, 12:10:24 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWejTVlVMAIapGq.jpg)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 20, 2018, 12:44:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 20, 2018, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 20, 2018, 09:04:58 AM
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/

Video of what?

I'd imagine of the bedroom variety
I'd imagine it's the one of Jackson, Bowe and some South African chap doing a soft focus PR media piece for Ulster rugby's social media platforms.

Bowe asks the others would they prefer to see the future or change the past. Bowe and the South African both state they'd prefer to see the future. Jackson then states he'd prefer to change the past - "I've done some dark things."

In the clip, the players are wearing the Ulster kit worn between 2015 and 2017 but it's not clear exactly when the clip was filmed.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 20, 2018, 12:50:53 PM
If that's the clip referred to, regardless of when it was filmed, it is completely and utterly irrelevant. Jackson clearly joking in it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 20, 2018, 12:52:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 20, 2018, 12:44:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 20, 2018, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 20, 2018, 09:04:58 AM
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/

Video of what?

I'd imagine of the bedroom variety
I'd imagine it's the one of Jackson, Bowe and some South African chap doing a soft focus PR media piece for Ulster rugby's social media platforms.

Bowe asks the others would they prefer to see the future or change the past. Bowe and the South African both state they'd prefer to see the future. Jackson then states he'd prefer to change the past - "I've done some dark things."

In the clip, the players are wearing the Ulster kit worn between 2015 and 2017 but it's not clear exactly when the clip was filmed.

Let's stop beating about the bush there's a rumour that a video exists of the encounter that night. I haven't seen it and don't know anybody who has but apparently there is one.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 20, 2018, 01:11:19 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 20, 2018, 12:52:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 20, 2018, 12:44:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 20, 2018, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 20, 2018, 09:04:58 AM
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/

Video of what?

I'd imagine of the bedroom variety
I'd imagine it's the one of Jackson, Bowe and some South African chap doing a soft focus PR media piece for Ulster rugby's social media platforms.

Bowe asks the others would they prefer to see the future or change the past. Bowe and the South African both state they'd prefer to see the future. Jackson then states he'd prefer to change the past - "I've done some dark things."

In the clip, the players are wearing the Ulster kit worn between 2015 and 2017 but it's not clear exactly when the clip was filmed.

Let's stop beating about the bush there's a rumour that a video exists of the encounter that night. I haven't seen it and don't know anybody who has but apparently there is one.
"Apparently".

Any video of the "encounter" would have to have been filmed by either Jackson, Olding, McIlroy, the complainant or Dara Florence, given that they are only people who were present at any stage in the room.

I think we can rule out the complainant and Dara Florence.

McIlroy was taking photographs downstairs, but only arrived on the scene at the end.

So almost certainly only Jackson or Olding could have filmed it, if one exists.

While it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility for something to have been filmed by either Jackson or Olding, it would have almost certainly been filmed on a smartphone, and would almost certainly have become part of the evidence at this trial, either because it existed or had been deleted, which the police would have known about.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 20, 2018, 01:13:27 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 20, 2018, 12:52:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 20, 2018, 12:44:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 20, 2018, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 20, 2018, 09:04:58 AM
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/

Video of what?

I'd imagine of the bedroom variety
I'd imagine it's the one of Jackson, Bowe and some South African chap doing a soft focus PR media piece for Ulster rugby's social media platforms.

Bowe asks the others would they prefer to see the future or change the past. Bowe and the South African both state they'd prefer to see the future. Jackson then states he'd prefer to change the past - "I've done some dark things."

In the clip, the players are wearing the Ulster kit worn between 2015 and 2017 but it's not clear exactly when the clip was filmed.

Let's stop beating about the bush there's a rumour that a video exists of the encounter that night. I haven't seen it and don't know anybody who has but apparently there is one.

There's also a rumour that Gerry Adams wasn't an IRA leader.

Let's wait and see if it's yet another BS rumour trying to discredit the victim before we comment.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 20, 2018, 01:19:19 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 20, 2018, 12:52:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 20, 2018, 12:44:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 20, 2018, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 20, 2018, 09:04:58 AM
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/

Video of what?

I'd imagine of the bedroom variety
I'd imagine it's the one of Jackson, Bowe and some South African chap doing a soft focus PR media piece for Ulster rugby's social media platforms.

Bowe asks the others would they prefer to see the future or change the past. Bowe and the South African both state they'd prefer to see the future. Jackson then states he'd prefer to change the past - "I've done some dark things."

In the clip, the players are wearing the Ulster kit worn between 2015 and 2017 but it's not clear exactly when the clip was filmed.

Let's stop beating about the bush there's a rumour that a video exists of the encounter that night. I haven't seen it and don't know anybody who has but apparently there is one.

"Apparently"  Thats the type of evidence that might stand up in a West Belfast back kitchen kangaroo court but you won't get too far with it in the Laganside
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 01:25:19 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 20, 2018, 12:44:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 20, 2018, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 20, 2018, 09:04:58 AM
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/

Video of what?

I'd imagine of the bedroom variety
I'd imagine it's the one of Jackson, Bowe and some South African chap doing a soft focus PR media piece for Ulster rugby's social media platforms.

Bowe asks the others would they prefer to see the future or change the past. Bowe and the South African both state they'd prefer to see the future. Jackson then states he'd prefer to change the past - "I've done some dark things."

In the clip, the players are wearing the Ulster kit worn between 2015 and 2017 but it's not clear exactly when the clip was filmed.

well if the prosecution are going with that, then these lads are getting off!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 20, 2018, 01:28:59 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 01:25:19 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 20, 2018, 12:44:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 20, 2018, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 20, 2018, 09:04:58 AM
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/

Video of what?

I'd imagine of the bedroom variety
I'd imagine it's the one of Jackson, Bowe and some South African chap doing a soft focus PR media piece for Ulster rugby's social media platforms.

Bowe asks the others would they prefer to see the future or change the past. Bowe and the South African both state they'd prefer to see the future. Jackson then states he'd prefer to change the past - "I've done some dark things."

In the clip, the players are wearing the Ulster kit worn between 2015 and 2017 but it's not clear exactly when the clip was filmed.

well if the prosecution are going with that, then these lads are getting off!
It doesn't say much for your understanding of legal cases that you think the prosecution would be "going with that".

The clip has being doing the rounds for at least two weeks.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 01:32:49 PM
You brought it up (this clip) are the prosecution going to use it?

So if you were on the jury it would help form an opinion on Jackson, for what?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 20, 2018, 01:34:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 20, 2018, 01:28:59 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 01:25:19 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 20, 2018, 12:44:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 20, 2018, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 20, 2018, 09:04:58 AM
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/

Video of what?

I'd imagine of the bedroom variety
I'd imagine it's the one of Jackson, Bowe and some South African chap doing a soft focus PR media piece for Ulster rugby's social media platforms.

Bowe asks the others would they prefer to see the future or change the past. Bowe and the South African both state they'd prefer to see the future. Jackson then states he'd prefer to change the past - "I've done some dark things."

In the clip, the players are wearing the Ulster kit worn between 2015 and 2017 but it's not clear exactly when the clip was filmed.

well if the prosecution are going with that, then these lads are getting off!
It doesn't say much for your understanding of legal cases that you think the prosecution would be "going with that".

The clip has being doing the rounds for at least two weeks.

This?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq32l6bERQs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq32l6bERQs)

Hardly worthy of comment as I presume it was scripted, no?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 20, 2018, 01:48:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 01:32:49 PM
You brought it up (this clip) are the prosecution going to use it?

So if you were on the jury it would help form an opinion on Jackson, for what?

Orior brought it up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 01:55:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2018, 01:48:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 01:32:49 PM
You brought it up (this clip) are the prosecution going to use it?

So if you were on the jury it would help form an opinion on Jackson, for what?

Orior brought it up.

Not that clip, think his clip chat was about a possible video of the session in the bedroom
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 20, 2018, 02:03:57 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 01:55:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2018, 01:48:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 01:32:49 PM
You brought it up (this clip) are the prosecution going to use it?

So if you were on the jury it would help form an opinion on Jackson, for what?

Orior brought it up.

Not that clip, think his clip chat was about a possible video of the session in the bedroom

Nobody has ascertained what video he's on about, hence the whole debate.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 20, 2018, 02:49:02 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 20, 2018, 01:19:19 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 20, 2018, 12:52:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 20, 2018, 12:44:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 20, 2018, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 20, 2018, 09:04:58 AM
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/

Video of what?

I'd imagine of the bedroom variety
I'd imagine it's the one of Jackson, Bowe and some South African chap doing a soft focus PR media piece for Ulster rugby's social media platforms.

Bowe asks the others would they prefer to see the future or change the past. Bowe and the South African both state they'd prefer to see the future. Jackson then states he'd prefer to change the past - "I've done some dark things."

In the clip, the players are wearing the Ulster kit worn between 2015 and 2017 but it's not clear exactly when the clip was filmed.

Let's stop beating about the bush there's a rumour that a video exists of the encounter that night. I haven't seen it and don't know anybody who has but apparently there is one.

"Apparently"  Thats the type of evidence that might stand up in a West Belfast back kitchen kangaroo court but you won't get too far with it in the Laganside
You've obviously never seen the British judicial system in full flow
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tommysmith on February 20, 2018, 03:02:20 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 20, 2018, 02:49:02 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 20, 2018, 01:19:19 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 20, 2018, 12:52:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 20, 2018, 12:44:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 20, 2018, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 20, 2018, 09:04:58 AM
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/

Video of what?

I'd imagine of the bedroom variety
I'd imagine it's the one of Jackson, Bowe and some South African chap doing a soft focus PR media piece for Ulster rugby's social media platforms.

Bowe asks the others would they prefer to see the future or change the past. Bowe and the South African both state they'd prefer to see the future. Jackson then states he'd prefer to change the past - "I've done some dark things."

In the clip, the players are wearing the Ulster kit worn between 2015 and 2017 but it's not clear exactly when the clip was filmed.

Let's stop beating about the bush there's a rumour that a video exists of the encounter that night. I haven't seen it and don't know anybody who has but apparently there is one.

"Apparently"  Thats the type of evidence that might stand up in a West Belfast back kitchen kangaroo court but you won't get too far with it in the Laganside
You've obviously never seen the British judicial system in full flow

Did the lady in question give her consent to the recording?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mike Tyson on February 20, 2018, 03:51:26 PM
Doctor at the rape clinic saying she made no reference to Olding having orally raped her when being examined.

According to Frank Greaney, she also alleged that the "second man vagninally raped her while on her back".

So why is Olding being done for oral rape and not vaginal?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 20, 2018, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: Mike Tyson on February 20, 2018, 03:51:26 PM
Doctor at the rape clinic saying she made no reference to Olding having orally raped her when being examined.

According to Frank Greaney, she also alleged that the "second man vagninally raped her while on her back".

So why is Olding being done for oral rape and not vaginal?

The charge will be in the basis of what she reported to the police. Not sure of any criminal justice systems that charges people based on what they say to a doctor.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 20, 2018, 04:00:33 PM
Quote from: Mike Tyson on February 20, 2018, 03:51:26 PM
Doctor at the rape clinic saying she made no reference to Olding having orally raped her when being examined.

According to Frank Greaney, she also alleged that the "second man vagninally raped her while on her back".

So why is Olding being done for oral rape and not vaginal?

This case is a complete mess. Is anyone actually telling the truth? This is close to being thrown out surely.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on February 20, 2018, 04:02:53 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 20, 2018, 04:00:33 PM
Quote from: Mike Tyson on February 20, 2018, 03:51:26 PM
Doctor at the rape clinic saying she made no reference to Olding having orally raped her when being examined.

According to Frank Greaney, she also alleged that the "second man vagninally raped her while on her back".

So why is Olding being done for oral rape and not vaginal?

This case is a complete mess. Is anyone actually telling the truth? This is close to being thrown out surely.

Finding it impossible to follow myself. The whole thing seems all over the place. But then we're not in the courtroom so difficult to know.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 04:04:41 PM
They have said they did drink a lot and things were hazy! Where they tested for drugs at all? as in, all the ones at the party
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Link on February 20, 2018, 04:05:02 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 01:55:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2018, 01:48:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 01:32:49 PM
You brought it up (this clip) are the prosecution going to use it?

So if you were on the jury it would help form an opinion on Jackson, for what?

Orior brought it up.

Not that clip, think his clip chat was about a possible video of the session in the bedroom

Nope. Orior's clip comment was about Bowe and some other lad which is the same video as the youtube link above.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 20, 2018, 04:06:44 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 20, 2018, 04:00:33 PM
Quote from: Mike Tyson on February 20, 2018, 03:51:26 PM
Doctor at the rape clinic saying she made no reference to Olding having orally raped her when being examined.

According to Frank Greaney, she also alleged that the "second man vagninally raped her while on her back".

So why is Olding being done for oral rape and not vaginal?

This case is a complete mess. Is anyone actually telling the truth? This is close to being thrown out surely.

Lol. The cavemen better not be getting their hopes up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mike Tyson on February 20, 2018, 04:21:23 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2018, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: Mike Tyson on February 20, 2018, 03:51:26 PM
Doctor at the rape clinic saying she made no reference to Olding having orally raped her when being examined.

According to Frank Greaney, she also alleged that the "second man vagninally raped her while on her back".

So why is Olding being done for oral rape and not vaginal?

The charge will be in the basis of what she reported to the police. Not sure of any criminal justice systems that charges people based on what they say to a doctor.

Very true. I suppose now the question is why would she not mention it at the rape clinic but said it was vaginal rape then change her story to the police?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 20, 2018, 04:43:34 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 20, 2018, 04:06:44 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 20, 2018, 04:00:33 PM
Quote from: Mike Tyson on February 20, 2018, 03:51:26 PM
Doctor at the rape clinic saying she made no reference to Olding having orally raped her when being examined.

According to Frank Greaney, she also alleged that the "second man vagninally raped her while on her back".

So why is Olding being done for oral rape and not vaginal?

This case is a complete mess. Is anyone actually telling the truth? This is close to being thrown out surely.

Lol. The cavemen better not be getting their hopes up.

That medical evidence you were so certain of not looking like much of a certainty today ye clown
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hereiam on February 20, 2018, 05:05:31 PM
Was thinking the same my self Milltown. If they had taken anything it would still be in their systems up to a week after.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 20, 2018, 05:13:30 PM
Did any of ye read the bit of evidence related to Olding's clothes that he wore on the night? He was arrested within an hour of the alleged victim's statement. He gave a detailed description of his clothing. When police searched his house the clothing could not be recovered. That was two days after the alleged incident.

You can pick out bits of evidence to support whatever you think happened.

It seems very possible to me that the accused lads took part in a cover up. Whether that's because they were guilty or just shitting it I can't tell. The alleged victim being so convincing stands out though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 20, 2018, 06:19:09 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 20, 2018, 02:49:02 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 20, 2018, 01:19:19 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 20, 2018, 12:52:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 20, 2018, 12:44:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 20, 2018, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 20, 2018, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 20, 2018, 09:04:58 AM
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/

Video of what?

I'd imagine of the bedroom variety
I'd imagine it's the one of Jackson, Bowe and some South African chap doing a soft focus PR media piece for Ulster rugby's social media platforms.

Bowe asks the others would they prefer to see the future or change the past. Bowe and the South African both state they'd prefer to see the future. Jackson then states he'd prefer to change the past - "I've done some dark things."

In the clip, the players are wearing the Ulster kit worn between 2015 and 2017 but it's not clear exactly when the clip was filmed.

Let's stop beating about the bush there's a rumour that a video exists of the encounter that night. I haven't seen it and don't know anybody who has but apparently there is one.

"Apparently"  Thats the type of evidence that might stand up in a West Belfast back kitchen kangaroo court but you won't get too far with it in the Laganside
You've obviously never seen the British judicial system in full flow
I know all about the British judicial system and I would take my chances on it rather than the kangaroo court system
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 20, 2018, 06:20:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2018, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: Mike Tyson on February 20, 2018, 03:51:26 PM
Doctor at the rape clinic saying she made no reference to Olding having orally raped her when being examined.

According to Frank Greaney, she also alleged that the "second man vagninally raped her while on her back".

So why is Olding being done for oral rape and not vaginal?

The charge will be in the basis of what she reported to the police. Not sure of any criminal justice systems that charges people based on what they say to a doctor.
The doctor is an independent witness. Any discrepancy creates a doubt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: armaghniac on February 20, 2018, 06:21:49 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2018, 03:58:05 PM
The charge will be in the basis of what she reported to the police. Not sure of any criminal justice systems that charges people based on what they say to a doctor.

However, inconsistency in different accounts could affect the likelihood of being convicted on that charge.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 20, 2018, 06:44:31 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 20, 2018, 06:21:49 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2018, 03:58:05 PM
The charge will be in the basis of what she reported to the police. Not sure of any criminal justice systems that charges people based on what they say to a doctor.

However, inconsistency in different accounts could affect the likelihood of being convicted on that charge.

I know, but that's not the question that was asked, was it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Aaron Boone on February 20, 2018, 07:34:23 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2018, 06:44:31 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 20, 2018, 06:21:49 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2018, 03:58:05 PM
The charge will be in the basis of what she reported to the police. Not sure of any criminal justice systems that charges people based on what they say to a doctor.

However, inconsistency in different accounts could affect the likelihood of being convicted on that charge.

I know, but that's not the question that was asked, was it?

Sowing seeds of doubt in the jury's mind. Bit by bit, the barristers happy to peck away.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 20, 2018, 08:01:42 PM
What?! The barristers have done nothing. This entire sub-conversation had started because one muppet heard a rumour about a video going around. This hasn't made its way to court.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on February 20, 2018, 08:53:22 PM
If there was a video we would have all seen it by now. As proven in the suposed footage of the star witness doing the rounds.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 20, 2018, 09:18:55 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/doctor-who-examined-alleged-rugby-rape-victim-could-not-say-if-sex-was-consensual-36624562.html
He found a tear approximately two or three centimetres inside the vagina.

Prosecutor Toby Hedworth QC asked: "How much of the skin was affected by that ... the tissue that was lacerated or torn?"

Dr Lavery said: "The definition of a laceration is a full thickness tear."

It could have been caused by "any blunt force trauma" applied to the wall of the vagina, he said.

Dr Lavery said: "It could include a penis, it could include fingers or it could include any object."

When asked if he could "choose" between any of the potential causes, the doctor replied: "No, Your Honour."

The woman had been tearful but co-operative during the hour-long examination and showed no signs of intoxication, the court heard.

Later, during questioning by a barrister for Stuart Olding who also denies rape, Dr Lavery read aloud notes he had recorded about the complainant's account of what happened.

In them she described being "pushed on to the bed" and raped by a man who then turned her over and "raped her from the front".

The alleged assailant caused pain because he was "rough", the doctor noted.

According to the document, a second man entered the room and vaginally raped her while she was on her back.

No condom was used and she was unsure if ejaculation had taken place, he said.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:53:06 AM
Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head at Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 09:16:09 AM
It's very hard to call this on the basis of a two minute summary of a full day's evidence.

Maybe I missed this last week but what is Rory Harrison alleged to have done that led to him being charged with perverting the course of justice?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 21, 2018, 09:34:58 AM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 09:16:09 AM
It's very hard to call this on the basis of a two minute summary of a full day's evidence.

Maybe I missed this last week but what is Rory Harrison alleged to have done that led to him being charged with perverting the course of justice?

It is very hard to see what the case against him actually is.  Perhaps he was not as forthcoming with information as PPS would have liked.  Much made of the PSNI not asking for his phone during the investigation to push back by showing the investigation wasn't great.  It would appear that he is being included with the others to give the impression of conspiracy to build the case against his friends.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 21, 2018, 10:00:05 AM
From what I can gather so far

Defence is.......
No medical evidence to suggest it wasnt consensual
Independent witness said apparently no force
IP told a different story to doctor than to police
PJ, SO etc say all consensual

Prosecution is.........
No medical evidence to suggest it was consensual
IP says there was no consent
Taxi driver says IP was upset going home
Blood stained clothing

Is there anything missing or does it constitute beyond all doubt?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 21, 2018, 10:35:38 AM
Quote from: Taylor on February 21, 2018, 10:00:05 AM
From what I can gather so far

Defence is.......
No medical evidence to suggest it wasnt consensual
Independent witness said apparently no force
IP told a different story to doctor than to police
PJ, SO etc say all consensual

Prosecution is.........
No medical evidence to suggest it was consensual
IP says there was no consent
Taxi driver says IP was upset going home
Blood stained clothing

Is there anything missing or does it constitute beyond all doubt?

Oh didnt realise that there was blood stains
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: laceer on February 21, 2018, 10:37:53 AM
You've forgot Syferus' verdict. Surely that's the most important argument here.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 21, 2018, 10:50:29 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 21, 2018, 10:35:38 AM
Quote from: Taylor on February 21, 2018, 10:00:05 AM
From what I can gather so far

Defence is.......
No medical evidence to suggest it wasnt consensual
Independent witness said apparently no force
IP told a different story to doctor than to police
PJ, SO etc say all consensual

Prosecution is.........
No medical evidence to suggest it was consensual
IP says there was no consent
Taxi driver says IP was upset going home
Blood stained clothing

Is there anything missing or does it constitute beyond all doubt?

Oh didnt realise that there was blood stains

Unless Im mistaken it was mentioned 2 weeks ago?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:53:06 AM
Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head bobbing up and down on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.
Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 21, 2018, 11:20:30 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:53:06 AM
Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head bobbing up and down on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.
Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?

Dara Florence stated she saw "no signs of active consent" from the complainant.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 21, 2018, 11:24:05 AM
Defence doctor trying to shit all over what the prosecutors doc said yesterday!!

Follow @frankgreaney
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 11:40:14 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 21, 2018, 11:20:30 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:53:06 AM
Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head bobbing up and down on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.
Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?

Dara Florence stated she saw "no signs of active consent" from the complainant.
Yeah thats what i thought.  So where is this Bobbing up and down coming from?  Or is just the mental image the poster is projecting of "no signs of distress"?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 21, 2018, 12:02:30 PM
No way these fellas are getting time for this. There has been nothing convincing about the case for prosecution.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on February 21, 2018, 12:05:40 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 21, 2018, 12:02:30 PM
No way these fellas are getting time for this. There has been nothing convincing about the case for prosecution.

I would agree
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 21, 2018, 12:28:54 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 21, 2018, 11:24:05 AM
Defence doctor trying to shit all over what the prosecutors doc said yesterday!!

Follow @frankgreaney

'Tis mad stuff altogether.

Looking at the reports of what she has been saying, you'd swear she was a prosecution witness.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 21, 2018, 12:44:05 PM
Anyone know what it is like to have your private parts discussed in such detail and across the airwaves?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 21, 2018, 12:45:59 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 21, 2018, 12:44:05 PM
Anyone know what it is like to have your private parts discussed in such detail and across the airwaves?

Two thoughts: the accused should not be named until after a conviction.
Am more convinced a victim (if she is) would be better to try and take law into her own hands than go through truama and abuse of a trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 21, 2018, 01:01:59 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 21, 2018, 12:45:59 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 21, 2018, 12:44:05 PM
Anyone know what it is like to have your private parts discussed in such detail and across the airwaves?

Two thoughts: the accused should not be named until after a conviction.
Am more convinced a victim (if she is) would be better to try and take law into her own hands than go through truama and abuse of a trial.

At this stage as no one is innocent or guilty it is absolutely horrific for all parties.

No one will come out of this well and it is clear many lives are ruined irrespective of the outcome unfortunately
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 01:31:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 21, 2018, 12:28:54 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 21, 2018, 11:24:05 AM
Defence doctor trying to shit all over what the prosecutors doc said yesterday!!

Follow @frankgreaney

'Tis mad stuff altogether.

Looking at the reports of what she has been saying, you'd swear she was a prosecution witness.

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?"

That snippet sounds like good work by the prosecution

But yes, I agree with your point that some of the prosecution witnesses sound like defence witnesses and vice versa!

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 01:46:24 PM
I hope Tony B and Minder are following the evidence this afternoon.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 21, 2018, 01:50:01 PM
With all the evidence on show MS, do believe the prosecution will get all three elements to prove to the jury to convict?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on February 21, 2018, 01:54:14 PM
Quote from: Minder on February 21, 2018, 12:05:40 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 21, 2018, 12:02:30 PM
No way these fellas are getting time for this. There has been nothing convincing about the case for prosecution.

I would agree
[/quot
I agree. We will never know what happened that night. She will have wished she took the money and run.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 01:55:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 21, 2018, 01:50:01 PM
With all the evidence on show MS, do believe the prosecution will get all three elements to prove to the jury to convict?

I think this afternoon there was a pretty important piece of evidence given by the defence doctor which surprised me and cleared up some doubts I had in the alleged victims story. I don't want to prejudge the decision so please don't ask me. I just think comments like the above from the guys are very off the mark. And a cracker from Jeepers Creepers there as well.  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 01:57:54 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 21, 2018, 01:50:01 PM
With all the evidence on show MS, do believe the prosecution will get all three elements to prove to the jury to convict?

Refresh my memory to save me ploughing through the entire thread MR2 - what are the three elements??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 02:04:02 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 21, 2018, 01:01:59 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 21, 2018, 12:45:59 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 21, 2018, 12:44:05 PM
Anyone know what it is like to have your private parts discussed in such detail and across the airwaves?

Two thoughts: the accused should not be named until after a conviction.
Am more convinced a victim (if she is) would be better to try and take law into her own hands than go through truama and abuse of a trial.

At this stage as no one is innocent or guilty it is absolutely horrific for all parties.

No one will come out of this well and it is clear many lives are ruined irrespective of the outcome unfortunately

If the woman gets a conviction she's an absolute hero. Stop trying to draw false equivalence. You've attempted it a few times now.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:53:06 AM
Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.
Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?
Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 02:17:41 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:53:06 AM
Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.
Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?
Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

"It looked like consensual actions" - Surprised the prosecution QC didn't follow this up, but maybe he did and it just wasn't reported.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 02:20:21 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:53:06 AM
Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.
Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?
Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

I don't think you still get that violence isn't a necessary component in rape, let alone when one hulking rugby player has already broken the victim's will.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 21, 2018, 02:22:42 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:53:06 AM
Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.
Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?
Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

Pretty big error you made there. You know, competent fabricating a piece of the story.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LeoMc on February 21, 2018, 02:24:00 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 02:17:41 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:53:06 AM
Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.
Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?
Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

"It looked like consensual actions" - Surprised the prosecution QC didn't follow this up, but maybe he did and it just wasn't reported.
They did. On re-examination Hedworth QC asked her if there were any signs of the woman "positively consenting". She said No.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 21, 2018, 02:28:02 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 02:04:02 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 21, 2018, 01:01:59 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 21, 2018, 12:45:59 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 21, 2018, 12:44:05 PM
Anyone know what it is like to have your private parts discussed in such detail and across the airwaves?

Two thoughts: the accused should not be named until after a conviction.
Am more convinced a victim (if she is) would be better to try and take law into her own hands than go through truama and abuse of a trial.

At this stage as no one is innocent or guilty it is absolutely horrific for all parties.

No one will come out of this well and it is clear many lives are ruined irrespective of the outcome unfortunately

If the woman gets a conviction she's an absolute hero. Stop trying to draw false equivalence. You've attempted it a few times now.

Apologies your Honour.

And if she doesnt get a conviction that would make her a liar? Or worse? I think not.

Many lives are ruined irrespective of the outcome.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 21, 2018, 02:31:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 02:20:21 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:53:06 AM
Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.
Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?
Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

I don't think you still get that violence isn't a necessary component in rape, let alone when one hulking rugby player has already broken the victim's will.

Paddy Jackson? From the snippets and tweets, I think it's impossible to say she was raped, beyond reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 21, 2018, 02:32:37 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on February 21, 2018, 02:24:00 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 02:17:41 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:53:06 AM
Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.
Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?
Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

"It looked like consensual actions" - Surprised the prosecution QC didn't follow this up, but maybe he did and it just wasn't reported.
They did. On re-examination Hedworth QC asked her if there were any signs of the woman "positively consenting". She said No.

What would that mean? Waving to the girl to join them or saying its ok I'm enjoying this? strange question
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 02:34:01 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 21, 2018, 02:31:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 02:20:21 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:53:06 AM
Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.
Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?
Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

I don't think you still get that violence isn't a necessary component in rape, let alone when one hulking rugby player has already broken the victim's will.

Paddy Jackson? From the snippets and tweets, I think it's impossible to say she was raped, beyond reasonable doubt.

You've a strange opinion to say the least, AZ.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:35:04 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 21, 2018, 02:31:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 02:20:21 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:53:06 AM
Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.
Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?
Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

I don't think you still get that violence isn't a necessary component in rape, let alone when one hulking rugby player has already broken the victim's will.

Paddy Jackson? From the snippets and tweets, I think it's impossible to say she was raped, beyond reasonable doubt.

Ah come on AZ, you hardly think most girls would be physically able for an international professional rugby player. Just because it's said by Syf doesn't mean it's wrong.

Also - I think you need to see this afternoon's evidence.......and possibly there's more to come.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 21, 2018, 02:37:31 PM
Maybe, but from what I've read, it seems to be a case of he said, she said. The Witness was absolutely not saying it looked like a bad situation, even if she couldn't say it was absolutely consensual. (How would you know). The medical evidence seems to be inconclusive because the same results could be seen by consensual sex. The witness said Oldings hands were not on the girl.

The main lie that seems obvious is Jackson's statement to the cops that he didn't penetrate her. That seems to be a lie.

I suppose you could infer that his whole story is a lie, but I'm not sure.

There's enough doubt and inconsistencies that I'd be thinking they'd get off.

MASSIVE CAVEAT, based on what I see and read on twitter. I'm not in the courtroom or on the jury.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:38:32 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on February 21, 2018, 02:24:00 PM
On re-examination Hedworth QC asked her if there were any signs of the woman "positively consenting". She said No.
Absolutely correct. But you could take Q3 below or Q6 below and requote at will to give opposite sides of the argument. Really need to take all of what she said re consent into account, rather than just one answer (and of course bearing in mind she was getting a very quick snapshot).

Q: "Did you have any concern when you left the room?"
A: "No."

Q: "Did you see any sign that (the complainant) was frozen with fear when you were stood watching her on the bed?"
A: "No,"

Q: "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?"
A: "No."

Q: "There was nothing unusual in the position that she was adopting that made you feel her position was forced or contrived in any way?"
A: "No."

Q: "Apart from turning her head, were there any actions?"
A: "No."

Q: "Were there any signs that (the complainant) was positively consenting?"
A: "No."
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 21, 2018, 02:39:33 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:35:04 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 21, 2018, 02:31:26 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 02:20:21 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:53:06 AM
Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.
Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?
Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

I don't think you still get that violence isn't a necessary component in rape, let alone when one hulking rugby player has already broken the victim's will.

Paddy Jackson? From the snippets and tweets, I think it's impossible to say she was raped, beyond reasonable doubt.

Ah come on AZ, you hardly think most girls would be physically able for an international professional rugby player. Just because it's said by Syf doesn't mean it's wrong.

Also - I think you need to see this afternoon's evidence.......and possibly there's more to come.

I was just saying there's no need to gild the lilly. JAckson is not a 'hulking' rugby player. He's about 5'9 or 5'10. Of course he's still stronger than a 19 year old girl. There's just no need to embellish.

It's amazing the way people can see the same tweets, and draw different conclusions. I presume I'm reading the same as you, but you seem to think that points to guilt. I don't see it that way.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:43:01 PM
AZ - to me it strengthens the alleged victims case and doesn't contradict the star witnesses evidence either. To me that's crucial. And it's an aspect of rape I never would have thought was the case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:43:18 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 21, 2018, 02:37:31 PM
Maybe, but from what I've read, it seems to be a case of he said, she said. The Witness was absolutely not saying it looked like a bad situation, even if she couldn't say it was absolutely consensual. (How would you know). The medical evidence seems to be inconclusive because the same results could be seen by consensual sex. The witness said Oldings hands were not on the girl.

The main lie that seems obvious is Jackson's statement to the cops that he didn't penetrate her. That seems to be a lie.

I suppose you could infer that his whole story is a lie, but I'm not sure.

There's enough doubt and inconsistencies that I'd be thinking they'd get off.

MASSIVE CAVEAT, based on what I see and read on twitter. I'm not in the courtroom or on the jury.
Based on the medical evidence, it seems clear that Jackson didn't "finish", so perhaps that could explain why he thought he could get away with that lie. Witness seemed very sure what was going on though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:44:24 PM
Have ye read the evidence from this afternoon?????
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 21, 2018, 02:44:51 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:43:01 PM
AZ - to me it strengthens the alleged victims case and doesn't contradict the star witnesses evidence either. To me that's crucial. And it's an aspect of rape I never would have thought was the case.

You might well be right. To me it's just another example where you can think something is likely, but can you be sure beyond reasonable doubt?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 21, 2018, 02:45:10 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:44:24 PM
Have ye read the evidence from this afternoon?????

I read Greaney's tweets.

A grey and white duvet cover taken from Paddy Jackson's home was also examined by this witness. She said blood staining was visible on it. She tells the jury it was tested and found to match the DNA profile of the complainant.

5 replies 11 retweets 26 likes
Reply 5   Retweet 11   Like 26   Direct message

Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
2h2 hours ago
More
Court hears Stuart Olding's semen was also found on her underwear and the black top she was wearing on the night in question.

6 replies 2 retweets 9 likes
Reply 6   Retweet 2   Like 9   Direct message

Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
2h2 hours ago
More
Court hears Stuart Olding's semen was found on the woman's jeans. Mr. Olding is accused of forcing her to perform oral sex on him. He denies the charge and claims the sex act she performed on him was consensual.

0 replies 2 retweets 4 likes
Reply   Retweet 2   Like 4   Direct message

Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
2h2 hours ago
More
A forensic scientist is now giving evidence. She says swabs taken from the complainant's vagina returned negative for semen.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:45:54 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:44:24 PM
Have ye read the evidence from this afternoon?????
No bodily fluid from Jackson. Only from Olding's oral.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:46:37 PM
Did ye see the evidence from the defence Doctor about resistance?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:47:43 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:46:37 PM
Did ye see the evidence from the defence Doctor about resistance?
Is that actually evidence?
That's just saying no resistance doesn't necessarily mean no rape.

You seem to be reading it as No Resistance = Rape!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:47:43 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:46:37 PM
Did ye see the evidence from the defence Doctor about resistance?
That's not evidence!
That's just saying no resistance doesn't necessarily mean no rape.

You seem to be reading it as No Resistance = Rape!

You can't have a civilised conversation around here.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 21, 2018, 02:50:17 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:46:37 PM
Did ye see the evidence from the defence Doctor about resistance?

No put it up?

No semen?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:51:07 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 01:55:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 21, 2018, 01:50:01 PM
With all the evidence on show MS, do believe the prosecution will get all three elements to prove to the jury to convict?

I think this afternoon there was a pretty important piece of evidence given by the defence doctor which surprised me and cleared up some doubts I had in the alleged victims story. I don't want to prejudge the decision so please don't ask me. I just think comments like the above from the guys are very off the mark. And a cracker from Jeepers Creepers there as well.  ::)

Here is what I said earlier for the people making shit up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:52:41 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:47:43 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:46:37 PM
Did ye see the evidence from the defence Doctor about resistance?
That's not evidence!
That's just saying no resistance doesn't necessarily mean no rape.

You seem to be reading it as No Resistance = Rape!

You can't have a civilised conversation around here.
Seriously?
I thought you said this was crucial piece of evidence for the prosecution. Apologies if I misread
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:57:25 PM
I've put it up twice now.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 03:12:02 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??

And went to the bathroom to clean up then. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.

 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.

Is there any evidence that either the alleged victim, Olding or someone else wiped it on her clothing?

Jackson's lie - what was that?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 21, 2018, 03:26:24 PM
I wonder how the coppers couldn't find Oldings clothing from the night in question!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:27:35 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 21, 2018, 03:26:24 PM
I wonder how the coppers couldn't find Oldings clothing from the night in question!
Because it's the PSNI we're talking about!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:29:35 PM
Court is done for today.  Police interviews (of all parties) tomorrow.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 21, 2018, 03:36:28 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 21, 2018, 03:26:24 PM
I wonder how the coppers couldn't find Oldings clothing from the night in question!

perhaps he was getting them dry cleaned.  He may have changed from clothes he was wearing on night out in his parents house as an example.  I dont think finding his clothes from the night in question would be massively telling for either the prosecution or defence
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 21, 2018, 03:39:05 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 21, 2018, 03:36:28 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 21, 2018, 03:26:24 PM
I wonder how the coppers couldn't find Oldings clothing from the night in question!

perhaps he was getting them dry cleaned.  He may have changed from clothes he was wearing on night out in his parents house as an example.  I don't think finding his clothes from the night in question would be massively telling for either the prosecution or defence

I understand that, but surely the cops asked him where they were and unless they got the "no comment" response, it is strange IMO.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 03:39:51 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.



Another false equivalence.

She made an incorrect assertion to a doctor and corrected it for her police statement, did she not? Calling it a lie is a bit harsh.....I'm sure she wasn't under caution in the rape crisis centre. She was also pretty traumatised at the time - there is supporting evidence from several parties to confirm this - so I think she can be forgiven in the light of all these matters and her otherwise very believable and consistent evidence.

No such mitigating circumstances exist for Jackson (or Olding). Olding's clothes never recovered either. People might say they panicked when the accusations were in the offing so at best they've stupidly made up some lies which I think is a crime anyway.

Police statements tomorrow including recordings of defendants.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.

Is there any evidence that either the alleged victim, Olding or someone else wiped it on her clothing?

Jackson's lie - what was that?
Jackson said in a police statement that he just used his fingers. Witness said different and said it was 100%.

Not sure what the angle is re where the mess went. What difference does it make?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:42:20 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 21, 2018, 03:36:28 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 21, 2018, 03:26:24 PM
I wonder how the coppers couldn't find Oldings clothing from the night in question!

perhaps he was getting them dry cleaned.  He may have changed from clothes he was wearing on night out in his parents house as an example. I dont think finding his clothes from the night in question would be massively telling for either the prosecution or defence

Is that what he said happened??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.

Is there any evidence that either the alleged victim, Olding or someone else wiped it on her clothing?

Jackson's lie - what was that?
Jackson said in a police statement that he just used his fingers. Witness said different and said it was 100%.

Not sure what the angle is re where the mess went. What difference does it make?

Sorry, are you saying that the fact that Jackson lied about whether he had full penetrative sex or not with an alleged rape victim, is neither here nor there in terms of the case?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:46:28 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 03:39:51 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.



Another false equivalence.

She made an incorrect assertion to a doctor and corrected it for her police statement, did she not? Calling it a lie is a bit harsh.....I'm sure she wasn't under caution in the rape crisis centre. She was also pretty traumatised at the time - there is supporting evidence from several parties to confirm this - so I think she can be forgiven in the light of all these matters and her otherwise very believable and consistent evidence.

No such mitigating circumstances exist for Jackson (or Olding). Olding's clothes never recovered either. People might say they panicked when the accusations were in the offing so at best they've stupidly made up some lies which I think is a crime anyway.

Police statements tomorrow including recordings of defendants.
Like I said, I agree that the defendant's lie or incorrect assertion has little relevance to the substance of the case. But unlike you, I think Jackson's lie is similar. He also would have been under severe stress when he made his statement, and perhaps (wrongly) thought that because he hadn't "finished" that embellishing his story with an "incorrect assertion" might help his case.

Police statements will be interesting alright.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: WT4E on February 21, 2018, 03:46:43 PM
One thing I've learned.

No wonder the courts are under pressure - they start late, finish early and take long lunches!

Do some work!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 03:48:11 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:46:28 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 03:39:51 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.



Another false equivalence.

She made an incorrect assertion to a doctor and corrected it for her police statement, did she not? Calling it a lie is a bit harsh.....I'm sure she wasn't under caution in the rape crisis centre. She was also pretty traumatised at the time - there is supporting evidence from several parties to confirm this - so I think she can be forgiven in the light of all these matters and her otherwise very believable and consistent evidence.

No such mitigating circumstances exist for Jackson (or Olding). Olding's clothes never recovered either. People might say they panicked when the accusations were in the offing so at best they've stupidly made up some lies which I think is a crime anyway.

Police statements tomorrow including recordings of defendants.
Like I said, I agree that the defendant's lie or incorrect assertion has little relevance to the substance of the case. But unlike you, I think Jackson's lie is similar. He also would have been under severe stress when he made his statement, and perhaps (wrongly) thought that because he hadn't "finished" that embellishing his story with an "incorrect assertion" might help his case.

Police statements will be interesting alright.

You are joking? Please tell me you're joking?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:49:56 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.

Is there any evidence that either the alleged victim, Olding or someone else wiped it on her clothing?

Jackson's lie - what was that?
Jackson said in a police statement that he just used his fingers. Witness said different and said it was 100%.

Not sure what the angle is re where the mess went. What difference does it make?

Well, regarding the "mess", Olding might have to explain, if he ejaculated on his stomach and went to the bathroom to clean up (as he has stated), how did the semen get on three items of the victim's clothing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 03:50:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.

Is there any evidence that either the alleged victim, Olding or someone else wiped it on her clothing?

Jackson's lie - what was that?
Jackson said in a police statement that he just used his fingers. Witness said different and said it was 100%.

Not sure what the angle is re where the mess went. What difference does it make?

If you tell lies it looks like you're hiding something. That's why. Why not tell the truth?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:50:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.

Is there any evidence that either the alleged victim, Olding or someone else wiped it on her clothing?

Jackson's lie - what was that?
Jackson said in a police statement that he just used his fingers. Witness said different and said it was 100%.

Not sure what the angle is re where the mess went. What difference does it make?

Sorry, are you saying that the fact that Jackson lied about whether he had full penetrative sex or not with an alleged rape victim, is neither here nor there in terms of the case?
I'm saying I believe Jackson had sex.
I'm saying the fact that he lied about that doesn't mean he raped her.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:52:32 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:46:28 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 03:39:51 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.



Another false equivalence.

She made an incorrect assertion to a doctor and corrected it for her police statement, did she not? Calling it a lie is a bit harsh.....I'm sure she wasn't under caution in the rape crisis centre. She was also pretty traumatised at the time - there is supporting evidence from several parties to confirm this - so I think she can be forgiven in the light of all these matters and her otherwise very believable and consistent evidence.

No such mitigating circumstances exist for Jackson (or Olding). Olding's clothes never recovered either. People might say they panicked when the accusations were in the offing so at best they've stupidly made up some lies which I think is a crime anyway.

Police statements tomorrow including recordings of defendants.
Like I said, I agree that the defendant's lie or incorrect assertion has little relevance to the substance of the case. But unlike you, I think Jackson's lie is similar. He also would have been under severe stress when he made his statement, and perhaps (wrongly) thought that because he hadn't "finished" that embellishing his story with an "incorrect assertion" might help his case.

Police statements will be interesting alright.

So he thought it would be a good strategy to lie to the police?  Isn't that what guilty people usually do? ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:54:05 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 03:50:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.

Is there any evidence that either the alleged victim, Olding or someone else wiped it on her clothing?

Jackson's lie - what was that?
Jackson said in a police statement that he just used his fingers. Witness said different and said it was 100%.

Not sure what the angle is re where the mess went. What difference does it make?

If you tell lies it looks like you're hiding something. That's why. Why not tell the truth?
Indeed, it doesn't help him.
But like you said, just because the woman lied to the doctor doesn't mean she was hiding something. Why not tell the truth?

As I said, I would guess Jackson told the lie because he thought there would be no physical evidence against him as he didnt finish and he thought this embellishment would help his case. Instead it's completely backfired for him, and I'd guess makes it more likely that he will take the stand. But absolutely that lie does not make him guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:54:19 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:50:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.

Is there any evidence that either the alleged victim, Olding or someone else wiped it on her clothing?

Jackson's lie - what was that?
Jackson said in a police statement that he just used his fingers. Witness said different and said it was 100%.

Not sure what the angle is re where the mess went. What difference does it make?

Sorry, are you saying that the fact that Jackson lied about whether he had full penetrative sex or not with an alleged rape victim, is neither here nor there in terms of the case?
I'm saying I believe Jackson had sex.
I'm saying the fact that he lied about that doesn't mean he raped her.

But it does impact on his credibility.  If he lied about this, what else did he lie about?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 21, 2018, 03:55:52 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 03:50:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:41:29 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:06:13 PM
Olding's semen was found on the alleged victim's underwear, top and jeans, does that contradict Olding's assertion that he ejaculated on his stomach??
Would that be relevant one way or the other?
It could have ended up on the clothes by wiping hands on it or something.

She told the doctor a lie about Olding, but like Jackson's lie, I don't think it matters to the substantive issue of the case.

Is there any evidence that either the alleged victim, Olding or someone else wiped it on her clothing?

Jackson's lie - what was that?
Jackson said in a police statement that he just used his fingers. Witness said different and said it was 100%.

Not sure what the angle is re where the mess went. What difference does it make?

If you tell lies it looks like you're hiding something. That's why. Why not tell the truth?

Much the same as why say Olding had intercourse with you to one party but then say he didnt to another party?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 04:03:22 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:49:56 PM

Well, regarding the "mess", Olding might have to explain, if he ejaculated on his stomach and went to the bathroom to clean up (as he has stated), how did the semen get on three items of the victim's clothing.

You really think every last drop will go exactly where he aimed?

Would some not have got onto her, and maybe she (inadvertantly or not) wiped it off? What was on her clothes was traces rather the huge amounts I believe. Again, not sure what the implications are either way?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 21, 2018, 04:19:14 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 03:42:20 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on February 21, 2018, 03:36:28 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 21, 2018, 03:26:24 PM
I wonder how the coppers couldn't find Oldings clothing from the night in question!

perhaps he was getting them dry cleaned.  He may have changed from clothes he was wearing on night out in his parents house as an example. I dont think finding his clothes from the night in question would be massively telling for either the prosecution or defence

Is that what he said happened??

I don't know what he said happened - I was just speculating - don't think I read anywhere where they said what he said - just that the police searched the house and couldn't find them - I was giving two reasons they could not have been there.  Of course, another could have been that he took them and burned them but like I say I don't know and not sure if it was told in court - I'm sure like me everyone here is reading 2nd hand reports on the trial and isn't int the court every day
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on February 21, 2018, 04:21:43 PM
This was today, for Syferus, who seems to think why would anyone say they were raped if it wasn't true 

Man cleared of raping teenage boy in Belfast Falls Park


A 40-year old father of two has been acquitted of raping a teenage boy in west Belfast's Falls Park.
Gerard Scannell faced four charges arising from an alleged sex attack against the boy, who was 16 at the time.
The teenager claimed he was dragged into bushes and raped in July 2016.
However, after it emerged on Wednesday that the Crown would not be proceeding with the case, Mr Scannell was found "not guilty by direction of the court".
Mr Scannell, who is originally from Ballymurphy Road, but who was living at an undisclosed bail address in another area of Belfast, was charged with three counts of rape and of sexually assaulting the teenager.
'I'm going home'
The painter and decorator spent about 100 days on remand as well as being unable to return to west Belfast as a result of the allegations, which he consistently denied.
A trial which opened at Belfast Crown Court last month had to be aborted after the alleged injured party refused to continue with his evidence.
During his cross-examination, the teenager got up mid-question and said: "I'm going home".
A retrial was due to commence on Wednesday, but after a jury was sworn in, Judge Geoffrey Miller QC was told that the Crown would not be offering any evidence in the case.
As a result, Mr Scannell was acquitted on all four charges.
Judge Miller told the jury: "A trial was commenced some weeks ago and had to be adjourned mid-way though evidence being given.
"As a result of matters which arose at that time, the prosecution reviewed the nature and quality of the evidence in the case, and reached a determination that the test for prosecution is no longer met."
Telling the jury that Mr Scannell was entitled to a not guilty verdict, Judge Miller directed them to return that verdict.
When Mr Scannell was told he was free to go, his family applauded in the public gallery, and he was hugged as he left the court.
'My life has been destroyed'
Speaking afterwards, Mr Scannell said: "Since July 2016, I have faced unbearable anguish, removal from my home and family, and have spent some of this time in prison.
"I am both grateful and relieved to have been found not guilty of these allegations, some two years later."
He added: "My life has been destroyed over the last two years. I have been removed from my family and community - but I hope now to be able to rebuild my life and return to my community, with the help of my family.
"I will be forever grateful to all who supported me through this difficult process. I am also thankful to my legal team, and my faith in the legal process has been restored.
"I hope now, with the help of my family, to regain my standing within society and my own community."





Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 21, 2018, 04:22:10 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:52:41 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:47:43 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:46:37 PM
Did ye see the evidence from the defence Doctor about resistance?
That's not evidence!
That's just saying no resistance doesn't necessarily mean no rape.

You seem to be reading it as No Resistance = Rape!

You can't have a civilised conversation around here.
Seriously?
I thought you said this was crucial piece of evidence for the prosecution. Apologies if I misread

Given that you're the one completely fabricating stories today, you'll have up forgive anyone who gets a bit fed up with you when your fail to understand an opinion and then compound your own stupidity by incorrectly summarising said opinion.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 04:30:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 21, 2018, 04:22:10 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:52:41 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:47:43 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:46:37 PM
Did ye see the evidence from the defence Doctor about resistance?
That's not evidence!
That's just saying no resistance doesn't necessarily mean no rape.

You seem to be reading it as No Resistance = Rape!

You can't have a civilised conversation around here.
Seriously?
I thought you said this was crucial piece of evidence for the prosecution. Apologies if I misread

Given that you're the one completely fabricating stories today, you'll have up forgive anyone who gets a bit fed up with you when your fail to understand an opinion and then compound your own stupidity by incorrectly summarising said opinion.

I held hands up straight away, apologised, corrected what I said.

He said it was a "pretty important piece of evidence given by the defence doctor" and "to me, that's crucial".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 21, 2018, 04:38:39 PM
You did, to your credit.

Doesn't explain how on earth you came up with it in the first place. The only logical assumption is that you invented it due to your own prejudiced view of the proceedings.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 04:40:41 PM
Interesting comments on the blood from the doctor today (from Greaney's twitter):

Yesterday, Dr. Lavery told the trial he saw a 1cm bleeding laceration (tear) on the complainant's vaginal wall. Court heard he took a video recording of it. The defence's medical witness has watched the video.

She said: "I didn't see the injury, I saw a pool of blood and didn't see where that blood was coming from. I would have liked to have seen the injury and the blood being swabbed away so I could identify the injury."

After reflecting overnight, she said she would have been concerned that a lesion was still bleeding after 14 hours. She said if was still visible, she would have been thinking "how do I stop it?"

She tells the court bleeding injuries are not common in these cases and that she would have been left with the question "could it still be menstrual?"

Doctor says if injury (tear to vaginal wall) was caused by the excessive force of a penis, she would have expected other external structures to be injured as well.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 04:50:16 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 21, 2018, 04:38:39 PM
You did, to your credit.

Doesn't explain how on earth you came up with it in the first place. The only logical assumption is that you invented it due to your own prejudiced view of the proceedings.
That was my honest recollection of what I read in the Irish Times the following day. I was surprised when I saw people questioning it and got googling immediately.

I'm not prejudiced, but I do find it very hard to see what Olding did wrong.

Jackson, I'm less sure about, but haven't seen evidence yet that would make me vote Guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on February 21, 2018, 05:00:09 PM
Imagine having every little detail about your sexual encounter recounted in public. Sexual positions, semen, oral sex, vaginal sex, who was or wasn't there and your Mother and Father having to listen to it all. It being poured over on social media, the news everything. Both the accused and accuser. These guys are fucked whatever happens. What went on in that bedroom will hang over them till the day they die.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 05:13:26 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 21, 2018, 05:00:09 PM
Imagine having every little detail about your sexual encounter recounted in public. Sexual positions, semen, oral sex, vaginal sex, who was or wasn't there and your Mother and Father having to listen to it all. It being poured over on social media, the news everything. Both the accused and accuser. These guys are fucked whatever happens. What went on in that bedroom will hang over them till the day they die.

My heart quietly sinks a little further every time I see an attempt to draw a false equilevence between the lots of a rape victim and a rapist.

One deserves so much respect for their bravery in coming forward knowing full well what was in store, and will certainly get that respect from anyone who is worth associating with in the first place, while the other deserves every nasty jibe they get.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Ty4Sam on February 21, 2018, 05:14:59 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 21, 2018, 05:00:09 PM
Imagine having every little detail about your sexual encounter recounted in public. Sexual positions, semen, oral sex, vaginal sex, who was or wasn't there and your Mother and Father having to listen to it all. It being poured over on social media, the news everything. Both the accused and accuser. These guys are fucked whatever happens. What went on in that bedroom will hang over them till the day they die.

As someone has said on here, details/identity of the complainant AND the accused should remain confidential until after the court case. I don't see any reason why this can't be the case? Most of the laws of court were established in a time when modern technology, social media especially, was not around. Every detail been reported, within seconds, of it been said in court is devastating for all involved and will hang over them forever.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 21, 2018, 05:23:37 PM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on February 21, 2018, 05:14:59 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 21, 2018, 05:00:09 PM
Imagine having every little detail about your sexual encounter recounted in public. Sexual positions, semen, oral sex, vaginal sex, who was or wasn't there and your Mother and Father having to listen to it all. It being poured over on social media, the news everything. Both the accused and accuser. These guys are fucked whatever happens. What went on in that bedroom will hang over them till the day they die.

As someone has said on here, details/identity of the complainant AND the accused should remain confidential until after the court case. I don't see any reason why this can't be the case? Most of the laws of court were established in a time when modern technology, social media especially, was not around. Every detail been reported, within seconds, of it been said in court is devastating for all involved and will hang over them forever.

It seems that the blokes are assumed guilty until proven innocent, hence their identities are public. Does this prevent other potential offenders from following the same path?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on February 21, 2018, 06:41:41 PM
You would think so. I can't believe how public the details of this case are. It would have to put people off.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 21, 2018, 06:55:37 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on February 21, 2018, 06:41:41 PM
You would think so. I can't believe how public the details of this case are. It would have to put people off.

But we will still always make jokes are sex:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XfqlbFvGN8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XfqlbFvGN8)

and even rape jokes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bigZ1fmwD-Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bigZ1fmwD-Q)

Still a classic after all these years.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: red hander on February 21, 2018, 06:58:43 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 21, 2018, 05:23:37 PM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on February 21, 2018, 05:14:59 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 21, 2018, 05:00:09 PM
Imagine having every little detail about your sexual encounter recounted in public. Sexual positions, semen, oral sex, vaginal sex, who was or wasn't there and your Mother and Father having to listen to it all. It being poured over on social media, the news everything. Both the accused and accuser. These guys are fucked whatever happens. What went on in that bedroom will hang over them till the day they die.

As someone has said on here, details/identity of the complainant AND the accused should remain confidential until after the court case. I don't see any reason why this can't be the case? Most of the laws of court were established in a time when modern technology, social media especially, was not around. Every detail been reported, within seconds, of it been said in court is devastating for all involved and will hang over them forever.

It seems that the blokes are assumed guilty until proven innocent, hence their identities are public. Does this prevent other potential offenders from following the same path?

Jackson initially had an injunction preventing reporting of the case after being charged. So much for open justice
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 07:03:29 PM
Jesus Orior this is Fearonesque at this stage
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 21, 2018, 07:26:23 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 04:30:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 21, 2018, 04:22:10 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:52:41 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:47:43 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:46:37 PM
Did ye see the evidence from the defence Doctor about resistance?
That's not evidence!
That's just saying no resistance doesn't necessarily mean no rape.

You seem to be reading it as No Resistance = Rape!

You can't have a civilised conversation around here.
Seriously?
I thought you said this was crucial piece of evidence for the prosecution. Apologies if I misread

Given that you're the one completely fabricating stories today, you'll have up forgive anyone who gets a bit fed up with you when your fail to understand an opinion and then compound your own stupidity by incorrectly summarising said opinion.

I held hands up straight away, apologised, corrected what I said.

He said it was a "pretty important piece of evidence given by the defence doctor" and "to me, that's crucial".
Hound, you had exclaimed "That's not evidence!", which is pretty dumb considering the doctor was giving evidence. Of course it is evidence in this case, from someone who has vast experience in rape cases, to reply in answer to the question "whether most victims of sexual assault resist or allow it to happen.
she replied: "The evidence overwhelmingly is that it's allowed to happen."

Here you have evidence coming from an expert witness called by the defense, emphatically supporting the contention of the prosecution and the complainant. It might just happen to hand the prosecution some important morsels of clout when it comes to evaluating the evidence from the only witness to what happened in that room,  the "no sign of non-consensual sex" versus  "no signs of consent".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 21, 2018, 07:35:18 PM
Hopefully this sort of case will reduce the amounts of casual one night stands, reduce the amount of parties at the end of the night when you should really head home! Cut out the mixed messages couples gave when they've had a few! STD's drop and fewer rape cases...

Then again I'm talking shit... I can't see how they will be convicted tbh (from fireside lawyer)

if you conducted a poll on here you'd find most people will not find them guilty on all areas, of course that's made up ftom the facts, half facts, interpretation of what was said or not, and people's personal views regardless of the facts!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 07:38:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 21, 2018, 07:35:18 PM
Hopefully this sort of case will reduce the amounts of casual one night stands, reduce the amount of parties at the end of the night when you should really head home! Cut out the mixed messages couples gave when they've had a few! STD's drop and fewer rape cases...

Then again I'm talking shit... I can't see how they will be convicted tbh (from fireside lawyer)

if you conducted a poll on here you'd find most people will not find them guilty on all areas, of course that's made up ftom the facts, half facts, interpretation of what was said or not, and people's personal views regardless of the facts!

Your attempts to downplay their likelihood of being convicted for their crimes are well know at this stage. You've posted some variant of the above post at least six or seven times already.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on February 21, 2018, 07:41:54 PM
Did they daub the vaginal wall cut for DNA?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 21, 2018, 07:50:35 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 07:38:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 21, 2018, 07:35:18 PM
Hopefully this sort of case will reduce the amounts of casual one night stands, reduce the amount of parties at the end of the night when you should really head home! Cut out the mixed messages couples gave when they've had a few! STD's drop and fewer rape cases...

Then again I'm talking shit... I can't see how they will be convicted tbh (from fireside lawyer)

if you conducted a poll on here you'd find most people will not find them guilty on all areas, of course that's made up ftom the facts, half facts, interpretation of what was said or not, and people's personal views regardless of the facts!

Your attempts to downplay their likelihood of being convicted for their crimes are well know at this stage. You've posted some variant of the above post at least six or seven times already.

You're nuts! I've given a view like you based on snippets! Now get over yourself and stop attacking posters with a different view, debate with them and if you can't reason with them move on
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on February 21, 2018, 08:04:36 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 21, 2018, 07:50:35 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 07:38:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 21, 2018, 07:35:18 PM
Hopefully this sort of case will reduce the amounts of casual one night stands, reduce the amount of parties at the end of the night when you should really head home! Cut out the mixed messages couples gave when they've had a few! STD's drop and fewer rape cases...

Then again I'm talking shit... I can't see how they will be convicted tbh (from fireside lawyer)

if you conducted a poll on here you'd find most people will not find them guilty on all areas, of course that's made up ftom the facts, half facts, interpretation of what was said or not, and people's personal views regardless of the facts!

Your attempts to downplay their likelihood of being convicted for their crimes are well know at this stage. You've posted some variant of the above post at least six or seven times already.

You're nuts! I've given a view like you based on snippets! Now get over yourself and stop attacking posters with a different view, debate with them and if you can't reason with them move on

That's too hard for his simple mind. Much easier to just scream "Neanderthal" at people of opposing views.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on February 21, 2018, 08:38:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 05:13:26 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 21, 2018, 05:00:09 PM
Imagine having every little detail about your sexual encounter recounted in public. Sexual positions, semen, oral sex, vaginal sex, who was or wasn't there and your Mother and Father having to listen to it all. It being poured over on social media, the news everything. Both the accused and accuser. These guys are fucked whatever happens. What went on in that bedroom will hang over them till the day they die.

My heart quietly sinks a little further every time I see an attempt to draw a false equilevence between the lots of a rape victim and a rapist.

One deserves so much respect for their bravery in coming forward knowing full well what was in store, and will certainly get that respect from anyone who is worth associating with in the first place, while the other deserves every nasty jibe they get.

I am not drawing any equivalence, you are. I'm speaking specifically about this case. And despite what you may think, no one has been found guilty of anything yet.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 21, 2018, 08:39:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 05:13:26 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 21, 2018, 05:00:09 PM
Imagine having every little detail about your sexual encounter recounted in public. Sexual positions, semen, oral sex, vaginal sex, who was or wasn't there and your Mother and Father having to listen to it all. It being poured over on social media, the news everything. Both the accused and accuser. These guys are fucked whatever happens. What went on in that bedroom will hang over them till the day they die.

My heart quietly sinks a little further every time I see an attempt to draw a false equilevence between the lots of a rape victim and a rapist.

One deserves so much respect for their bravery in coming forward knowing full well what was in store, and will certainly get that respect from anyone who is worth associating with in the first place, while the other deserves every nasty jibe they get.

Even if they didn't do it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:46:29 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 21, 2018, 07:26:23 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 04:30:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 21, 2018, 04:22:10 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:52:41 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:47:43 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 21, 2018, 02:46:37 PM
Did ye see the evidence from the defence Doctor about resistance?
That's not evidence!
That's just saying no resistance doesn't necessarily mean no rape.

You seem to be reading it as No Resistance = Rape!

You can't have a civilised conversation around here.
Seriously?
I thought you said this was crucial piece of evidence for the prosecution. Apologies if I misread

Given that you're the one completely fabricating stories today, you'll have up forgive anyone who gets a bit fed up with you when your fail to understand an opinion and then compound your own stupidity by incorrectly summarising said opinion.

I held hands up straight away, apologised, corrected what I said.

He said it was a "pretty important piece of evidence given by the defence doctor" and "to me, that's crucial".
Hound, you had exclaimed "That's not evidence!", which is pretty dumb considering the doctor was giving evidence. Of course it is evidence in this case, from someone who has vast experience in rape cases, to reply in answer to the question "whether most victims of sexual assault resist or allow it to happen.
she replied: "The evidence overwhelmingly is that it's allowed to happen."

Here you have evidence coming from an expert witness called by the defense, emphatically supporting the contention of the prosecution and the complainant. It might just happen to hand the prosecution some important morsels of clout when it comes to evaluating the evidence from the only witness to what happened in that room,  the "no sign of non-consensual sex" versus  "no signs of consent".
"That's not evidence of rape!" is what I was saying, which I thought was obvious, but clearly it wasn't.

So I'll rephrase:

The evidence of the expert witness in relation to victims allowing it to happen, is not, in any way, shape or form, evidence of rape.

It does mean that just because she wasn't struggling when the witness came in, that jurors can't assume it wasn't rape. But a cry for help would have stopped everything, so that would still create doubt in my mind.

The medical evidence of today's doctor in relation to the blood and cut though was very much in favour of the defendants.  Taking both doctors into account, I was expecting a lot more medical evidence from what the prosecutor said in his opening statement.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LeoMc on February 21, 2018, 10:16:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 21, 2018, 02:32:37 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on February 21, 2018, 02:24:00 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 21, 2018, 02:17:41 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 21, 2018, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 08:53:06 AM
Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.
Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?
Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

"It looked like consensual actions" - Surprised the prosecution QC didn't follow this up, but maybe he did and it just wasn't reported.
They did. On re-examination Hedworth QC asked her if there were any signs of the woman "positively consenting". She said No.

What would that mean? Waving to the girl to join them or saying its ok I'm enjoying this? strange question
I would assume it was to contrast with the earlier Defense question of did there appear to be a lack of consent.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LeoMc on February 21, 2018, 10:19:57 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 21, 2018, 02:38:32 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on February 21, 2018, 02:24:00 PM
On re-examination Hedworth QC asked her if there were any signs of the woman "positively consenting". She said No.
Absolutely correct. But you could take Q3 below or Q6 below and requote at will to give opposite sides of the argument. Really need to take all of what she said re consent into account, rather than just one answer (and of course bearing in mind she was getting a very quick snapshot).

Q: "Did you have any concern when you left the room?"
A: "No."

Q: "Did you see any sign that (the complainant) was frozen with fear when you were stood watching her on the bed?"
A: "No,"

Q: "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?"
A: "No."

Q: "There was nothing unusual in the position that she was adopting that made you feel her position was forced or contrived in any way?"
A: "No."

Q: "Apart from turning her head, were there any actions?"
A: "No."

Q: "Were there any signs that (the complainant) was positively consenting?"
A: "No."
I am not trying to give any inference re consent or lack thereof. I quoted that question to answer the question in tje previous post about the lack of a cross examination.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trueblue1234 on February 21, 2018, 10:24:24 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 21, 2018, 08:39:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 05:13:26 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 21, 2018, 05:00:09 PM
Imagine having every little detail about your sexual encounter recounted in public. Sexual positions, semen, oral sex, vaginal sex, who was or wasn't there and your Mother and Father having to listen to it all. It being poured over on social media, the news everything. Both the accused and accuser. These guys are fucked whatever happens. What went on in that bedroom will hang over them till the day they die.

My heart quietly sinks a little further every time I see an attempt to draw a false equilevence between the lots of a rape victim and a rapist.

One deserves so much respect for their bravery in coming forward knowing full well what was in store, and will certainly get that respect from anyone who is worth associating with in the first place, while the other deserves every nasty jibe they get.

Even if they didn't do it?
Syf doesn't care. He's made his decision after 1.5 hrs of a trial. His decision is final.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on February 21, 2018, 10:49:53 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 21, 2018, 10:24:24 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 21, 2018, 08:39:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 21, 2018, 05:13:26 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 21, 2018, 05:00:09 PM
Imagine having every little detail about your sexual encounter recounted in public. Sexual positions, semen, oral sex, vaginal sex, who was or wasn't there and your Mother and Father having to listen to it all. It being poured over on social media, the news everything. Both the accused and accuser. These guys are fucked whatever happens. What went on in that bedroom will hang over them till the day they die.

My heart quietly sinks a little further every time I see an attempt to draw a false equilevence between the lots of a rape victim and a rapist.

One deserves so much respect for their bravery in coming forward knowing full well what was in store, and will certainly get that respect from anyone who is worth associating with in the first place, while the other deserves every nasty jibe they get.

Even if they didn't do it?
Syf doesn't care. He's made his decision after 1.5 hrs of a trial. His decision is final.

I doubt it took that long.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on February 22, 2018, 09:29:22 AM
PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO SYFERUS
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 22, 2018, 09:35:52 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 22, 2018, 09:29:22 AM
PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO SYFERUS

That would be a good start.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 22, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 22, 2018, 09:54:55 AM
He may well have but you're not going to change hearts and minds by the way he carries on.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 22, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 22, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change ;)
the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 10:14:05 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 22, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 22, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change ;)
the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.
How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 22, 2018, 10:29:51 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 10:14:05 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 22, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 22, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change ;)
the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.
How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.

How is the complainant's credibility at this point any higher than the defendant's?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 22, 2018, 10:34:08 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 10:14:05 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 22, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 22, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change ;)
the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.
How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.

From the evidence so far PJ's story doesnt seem to ring true as the witness has told a different story to his
Olding seems true.
IP doesnt ring true because she has told two different stories.

Can 1 defendant be found guilty and the other innocent or is it one down all down?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 22, 2018, 10:40:06 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 10:14:05 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 22, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 22, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change ;)
the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.
How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.





Unless of course you believe the expert evidence of the rebuttal witness who suggested that in their vast experience there's no way it could have been. These 4 may be guilty they may be not guilty or they may be innocent but it never ceases to amaze me how people can read tweets about hours of evidence and know what's fact and what's opinion and completely ignore or spin anything that doesn't suit that narrative. It's happened continually throughout the reporting of this trial from all sides. From the supposed PJ lie about not using his penis, to what the witness who entered the room saw, to this and everything in between. No wonder the criminal justice system is pilloried when people have minds made up without considering all the evidence and will then be the first to criticise jurors who have considered it all.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 22, 2018, 10:44:08 AM
Quote from: Taylor on February 22, 2018, 10:34:08 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 10:14:05 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 22, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 22, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change ;)
the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.
How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.

From the evidence so far PJ's story doesnt seem to ring true as the witness has told a different story to his
Olding seems true.
IP doesnt ring true because she has told two different stories.

Can 1 defendant be found guilty and the other innocent or is it one down all down?

1 or more could be convicted and the others acquitted. I think PJ and McIlroy are actually the closest linked so far from what I've read. It would be difficult to believe what the IP has said about one but not the other. It would be much easier to have different verdicts from PJ and Olding e.g. Guilty for PJ but Not guilty for Olding on the basis that he reasonably believed in all the circumstances that the victim was consenting.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 22, 2018, 10:46:06 AM
We haven't heard much about the obstruction of justice case against the fella who accompanied the complainant in the taxi.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 10:54:20 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 22, 2018, 10:40:06 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 10:14:05 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 22, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 22, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change ;)
the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.
How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.





Unless of course you believe the expert evidence of the rebuttal witness who suggested that in their vast experience there's no way it could have been. These 4 may be guilty they may be not guilty or they may be innocent but it never ceases to amaze me how people can read tweets about hours of evidence and know what's fact and what's opinion and completely ignore or spin anything that doesn't suit that narrative. It's happened continually throughout the reporting of this trial from all sides. From the supposed PJ lie about not using his penis, to what the witness who entered the room saw, to this and everything in between. No wonder the criminal justice system is pilloried when people have minds made up without considering all the evidence and will then be the first to criticise jurors who have considered it all.

It was not "expert evidence". It was the evidence of an expert who didn't examine the complainant, which is a different thing altogether. She also didn't say "there's no way it could have been" in relation to the wound still bleeding 14 hours later.

She basically asked a question about the source of the blood and that was it.

What she was in a position to be able to do as an expert was to confirm that the behaviour of the complainant during the chain of events was perfectly normal for a woman suffering a rape ordeal.

Dr. Lavery was the one who performed the forensic examination. He was clear that the blood was not menstrual. And he was the only independent witness with the authority to make that call.

Forensic evidence to date when the blood stains appeared on the complainant's trousers and underwear tallies with the complainant's description of events. She was not bleeding before the chain of events in Jackson's bedroom.


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: highorlow on February 22, 2018, 11:02:28 AM
QuoteFrom the supposed PJ lie about not using his penis

Correct, I was waiting for someone to raise this.

Where is this established as a lie? Have people read his full statement to the cops? Wouldn't his full statement need to be seen to contextualise events?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 11:04:41 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 22, 2018, 10:29:51 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 10:14:05 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 22, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 22, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change ;)
the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.
How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.

How is the complainant's credibility at this point any higher than the defendant's?

Because her story has almost completely held up.

We'll know more after today, but there already appear to be numerous inconsistencies in the accounts of the defendants and too many coincidences to believe there wasn't a cover up and porky pies told by them.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 11:11:21 AM
Quote from: highorlow on February 22, 2018, 11:02:28 AM
QuoteFrom the supposed PJ lie about not using his penis

Correct, I was waiting for someone to raise this.

Where is this established as a lie? Have people read his full statement to the cops? Wouldn't his full statement need to be seen to contextualise events?
The complainant says Jackson vaginally raped her.

Dara Florence says she "100% saw sex" involving Jackson and the complainant.

Jackson denies having vaginal sex with the complainant.

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/rugby-star-paddy-jackson-denies-having-sexual-intercourse-with-woman-court-told-36598986.html

There is no "context" that can explain away an outright denial that he had vaginal sex with the complainant.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 11:12:11 AM
sid, what about the doctor's statement that she told him she was raped twice, including once on her back?
This then changed to being forced to give Olding oral in her police statement, which I think will be read out today?
Finally, the witness account of Olding's hands by his side wouldn't tally with her being forced.

There seems to be inconsistencies all over the place, and the defence isn't clear yet. I know they are saying consensual, but as you said there appears to be inconsistencies there too.

It's very confusing. I don't envy the jury their job.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 22, 2018, 11:28:38 AM
These jurors mustn't be arsed with the case at all!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 11:44:46 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 11:12:11 AM
sid, what about the doctor's statement that she told him she was raped twice, including once on her back?
This then changed to being forced to give Olding oral in her police statement, which I think will be read out today?
Finally, the witness account of Olding's hands by his side wouldn't tally with her being forced.

There seems to be inconsistencies all over the place, and the defence isn't clear yet. I know they are saying consensual, but as you said there appears to be inconsistencies there too.

It's very confusing. I don't envy the jury their job.

What the complainant said to Dr. Lavery about Olding vaginally raping her is in my view one of only two real cards the defence have to play. My understanding, although I'm open to correction on this, is that that was not part of her statement to police.

Rape victims can suffer from fragmented and imperfect memory and trauma, and the complainant's account to Dr. Lavery was only a matter of hours after the events when she would still have been in shock and likely heavily sleep-deprived.

Olding's hands are highly unlikely to have stayed still during the events and are likely to have moved several times between his side and the back of the complainant's head and likely elsewhere. Dara Florence saw what was happening for a matter of seconds so what she saw was effectively a snapshot in time of where Olding's hands were. It's easy to see how there could be confusion between the complainant's account of where Olding's hands were in that snapshot in time and Florence's. Given the complainant's account that she was effectively "frozen", Olding could easily have removed his hands for a time and the complainant's head might not have moved. Also, her turning her head away doesn't mean she wasn't still effectively frozen.

Jackson's semen not being found in the swab from her vagina, which we learned of yesterday, is also a plus for the defence, though it doesn't mean Jackson didn't insert his penis into her vagina.

This is only my personal theory, but I suspect Jackson, while he had intent, might not have had much lead in his pencil and that's why he resorted to digital penetration.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 22, 2018, 11:59:46 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 11:44:46 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 11:12:11 AM
sid, what about the doctor's statement that she told him she was raped twice, including once on her back?
This then changed to being forced to give Olding oral in her police statement, which I think will be read out today?
Finally, the witness account of Olding's hands by his side wouldn't tally with her being forced.

There seems to be inconsistencies all over the place, and the defence isn't clear yet. I know they are saying consensual, but as you said there appears to be inconsistencies there too.

It's very confusing. I don't envy the jury their job.

What the complainant said to Dr. Lavery about Olding vaginally raping her is in my view one of only two real cards the defence have to play. My understanding, although I'm open to correction on this, is that that was not part of her statement to police.

Rape victims can suffer from fragmented and imperfect memory and trauma, and the complainant's account to Dr. Lavery was only a matter of hours after the events when she would still have been in shock and likely heavily sleep-deprived.

Olding's hands are highly unlikely to have stayed still during the events and are likely to have moved several times between his side and the back of the complainant's head and likely elsewhere. Dara Florence saw what was happening for a matter of seconds so what she saw was effectively a snapshot in time of where Olding's hands were. It's easy to see how there could be confusion between the complainant's account of where Olding's hands were in that snapshot in time and Florence's. Given the complainant's account that she was effectively "frozen", Olding could easily have removed his hands for a time and the complainant's head might not have moved. Also, her turning her head away doesn't mean she wasn't still effectively frozen.

Jackson's semen not being found in the swab from her vagina, which we learned of yesterday, is also a plus for the defence, though it doesn't mean Jackson didn't insert his penis into her vagina.

This is only my personal theory, but I suspect Jackson, while he had intent, might not have had much lead in his pencil and that's why he resorted to digital penetration.

The amount of drink taken over that period, what 7pm through to 3am at least in the morning, had there been drugs taken also? Not sure on the last one but hey the young ones nowadays!! I'd say her memory and the rugby lads memories are slightly off..

This is coming down to her word against theirs.. and is that enough to convict?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trueblue1234 on February 22, 2018, 12:15:41 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 11:44:46 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 11:12:11 AM
sid, what about the doctor's statement that she told him she was raped twice, including once on her back?
This then changed to being forced to give Olding oral in her police statement, which I think will be read out today?
Finally, the witness account of Olding's hands by his side wouldn't tally with her being forced.

There seems to be inconsistencies all over the place, and the defence isn't clear yet. I know they are saying consensual, but as you said there appears to be inconsistencies there too.

It's very confusing. I don't envy the jury their job.

What the complainant said to Dr. Lavery about Olding vaginally raping her is in my view one of only two real cards the defence have to play. My understanding, although I'm open to correction on this, is that that was not part of her statement to police.

Rape victims can suffer from fragmented and imperfect memory and trauma, and the complainant's account to Dr. Lavery was only a matter of hours after the events when she would still have been in shock and likely heavily sleep-deprived.

Olding's hands are highly unlikely to have stayed still during the events and are likely to have moved several times between his side and the back of the complainant's head and likely elsewhere. Dara Florence saw what was happening for a matter of seconds so what she saw was effectively a snapshot in time of where Olding's hands were. It's easy to see how there could be confusion between the complainant's account of where Olding's hands were in that snapshot in time and Florence's. Given the complainant's account that she was effectively "frozen", Olding could easily have removed his hands for a time and the complainant's head might not have moved. Also, her turning her head away doesn't mean she wasn't still effectively frozen.

Jackson's semen not being found in the swab from her vagina, which we learned of yesterday, is also a plus for the defence, though it doesn't mean Jackson didn't insert his penis into her vagina.

This is only my personal theory, but I suspect Jackson, while he had intent, might not have had much lead in his pencil and that's why he resorted to digital penetration.

But in this paragraph are you not leading the complainants version of events. And when I say that I mean, your version is very possible. But on the evidence it certainly doesn't come across as beyond reasonable doubt that this was what happened. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on February 22, 2018, 12:16:22 PM
Juror unwell, no evidence today. Stand down lads
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 22, 2018, 12:20:55 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 22, 2018, 11:59:46 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 11:44:46 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 11:12:11 AM
sid, what about the doctor's statement that she told him she was raped twice, including once on her back?
This then changed to being forced to give Olding oral in her police statement, which I think will be read out today?
Finally, the witness account of Olding's hands by his side wouldn't tally with her being forced.

There seems to be inconsistencies all over the place, and the defence isn't clear yet. I know they are saying consensual, but as you said there appears to be inconsistencies there too.

It's very confusing. I don't envy the jury their job.

What the complainant said to Dr. Lavery about Olding vaginally raping her is in my view one of only two real cards the defence have to play. My understanding, although I'm open to correction on this, is that that was not part of her statement to police.

Rape victims can suffer from fragmented and imperfect memory and trauma, and the complainant's account to Dr. Lavery was only a matter of hours after the events when she would still have been in shock and likely heavily sleep-deprived.

Olding's hands are highly unlikely to have stayed still during the events and are likely to have moved several times between his side and the back of the complainant's head and likely elsewhere. Dara Florence saw what was happening for a matter of seconds so what she saw was effectively a snapshot in time of where Olding's hands were. It's easy to see how there could be confusion between the complainant's account of where Olding's hands were in that snapshot in time and Florence's. Given the complainant's account that she was effectively "frozen", Olding could easily have removed his hands for a time and the complainant's head might not have moved. Also, her turning her head away doesn't mean she wasn't still effectively frozen.

Jackson's semen not being found in the swab from her vagina, which we learned of yesterday, is also a plus for the defence, though it doesn't mean Jackson didn't insert his penis into her vagina.

This is only my personal theory, but I suspect Jackson, while he had intent, might not have had much lead in his pencil and that's why he resorted to digital penetration.

The amount of drink taken over that period, what 7pm through to 3am at least in the morning, had there been drugs taken also? Not sure on the last one but hey the young ones nowadays!! I'd say her memory and the rugby lads memories are slightly off..

This is coming down to her word against theirs.. and is that enough to convict?

I think it was mentioned by the IP that there was no drugs consumed although unsure if any of the involved were tested
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 22, 2018, 12:22:03 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 10:54:20 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 22, 2018, 10:40:06 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 10:14:05 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 22, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 22, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change ;)
the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.
How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.





Unless of course you believe the expert evidence of the rebuttal witness who suggested that in their vast experience there's no way it could have been. These 4 may be guilty they may be not guilty or they may be innocent but it never ceases to amaze me how people can read tweets about hours of evidence and know what's fact and what's opinion and completely ignore or spin anything that doesn't suit that narrative. It's happened continually throughout the reporting of this trial from all sides. From the supposed PJ lie about not using his penis, to what the witness who entered the room saw, to this and everything in between. No wonder the criminal justice system is pilloried when people have minds made up without considering all the evidence and will then be the first to criticise jurors who have considered it all.

It was not "expert evidence". It was the evidence of an expert who didn't examine the complainant, which is a different thing altogether. She also didn't say "there's no way it could have been" in relation to the wound still bleeding 14 hours later.

She basically asked a question about the source of the blood and that was it.

What she was in a position to be able to do as an expert was to confirm that the behaviour of the complainant during the chain of events was perfectly normal for a woman suffering a rape ordeal.

Dr. Lavery was the one who performed the forensic examination. He was clear that the blood was not menstrual. And he was the only independent witness with the authority to make that call.

Forensic evidence to date when the blood stains appeared on the complainant's trousers and underwear tallies with the complainant's description of events. She was not bleeding before the chain of events in Jackson's bedroom.

By definition evidence given by an expert is expert evidence.  Again I haven't been at the trial but one the tweets I read (subject to my usual caveats about how foolish that is) suggested the rebuttal evidence was that having considered the medical notes and the video of the examination  it would be almost impossible to believe that the blood found was coming from a laceration in the vaginal wall that had existed for 14 hours and if it had have been you would have expected the first doctor to have been highly concerned about stopping it and that therefore it was likely menstrual. I think the defence expert is perfectly entitled to make that assertion given her experience. It's up to the jury what weight they put on that.

The point I'm making is that given I wasn't in court I don't know which of the two versions I would put more weight at this stage and don't understand how people on all sides can have made decisions on these issues from a few line summary and can therefore ignore anything that runs contrary to that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 22, 2018, 12:23:07 PM
Quote from: Minder on February 22, 2018, 12:16:22 PM
Juror unwell, no evidence today. Stand down lads

I'm sure he's away home to get some insight on the case from the Board!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 12:29:26 PM
The other thought nagging at me is what possible motive would the girl have for going this far if she didn't genuinely believe she was raped. It's a very courageous thing to do.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 22, 2018, 12:53:20 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 12:29:26 PM
The other thought nagging at me is what possible motive would the girl have for going this far if she didn't genuinely believe she was raped. It's a very courageous thing to do.

Only thing I could think of is that she possibly thought she was video'd by Dara Florence in the room, would people then delete that video if they knew it was evidence in a rape trial? Had been thinking something like that myself after reading she rang the girls (or one of) the next morning etc.

Who knows, it's a valid point you raise. I don't know why anyone would do this falsely.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 22, 2018, 12:54:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 11:04:41 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 22, 2018, 10:29:51 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 10:14:05 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 22, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 22, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change ;)
the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.
How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.

How is the complainant's credibility at this point any higher than the defendant's?

Because her story has almost completely held up.

We'll know more after today, but there already appear to be numerous inconsistencies in the accounts of the defendants and too many coincidences to believe there wasn't a cover up and porky pies told by them.

There has been a few inconsistencies/lies with both parties so far though.  The story of an individual is always likely to line up better than 3 together, especially given the fact that drink was involved.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 22, 2018, 12:55:42 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 22, 2018, 12:53:20 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 12:29:26 PM
The other thought nagging at me is what possible motive would the girl have for going this far if she didn't genuinely believe she was raped. It's a very courageous thing to do.

Only thing I could think of is that she possibly thought she was video'd by Dara Florence in the room, would people then delete that video if they knew it was evidence in a rape trial? Had been thinking something like that myself after reading she rang the girls (or one of) the next morning etc.

Who knows, it's a valid point you raise. I don't know why anyone would do this falsely.

The thought of being recorded would be the main reason, you would assume but there are people out there with twisted minds who make up rape allegations every day.  What are their motivations? 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 22, 2018, 12:56:26 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 12:29:26 PM
The other thought nagging at me is what possible motive would the girl have for going this far if she didn't genuinely believe she was raped. It's a very courageous thing to do.

Listen if she was raped its the only thing to do!

The other motives could have been she was pushed into it, or said something and it got legs and before she knows shes well over her head and beyond pulling back, or very possibly thinking there was a video (or she thought there was) of the incident and is completely embarrassedif it every comes out.

The only ones that know were there that night, being a father of two girls (young women now!)  I hope they never find themselves having to embark down that road..



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 22, 2018, 01:29:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 22, 2018, 11:59:46 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 11:44:46 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 11:12:11 AM
sid, what about the doctor's statement that she told him she was raped twice, including once on her back?
This then changed to being forced to give Olding oral in her police statement, which I think will be read out today?
Finally, the witness account of Olding's hands by his side wouldn't tally with her being forced.

There seems to be inconsistencies all over the place, and the defence isn't clear yet. I know they are saying consensual, but as you said there appears to be inconsistencies there too.

It's very confusing. I don't envy the jury their job.

What the complainant said to Dr. Lavery about Olding vaginally raping her is in my view one of only two real cards the defence have to play. My understanding, although I'm open to correction on this, is that that was not part of her statement to police.

Rape victims can suffer from fragmented and imperfect memory and trauma, and the complainant's account to Dr. Lavery was only a matter of hours after the events when she would still have been in shock and likely heavily sleep-deprived.

Olding's hands are highly unlikely to have stayed still during the events and are likely to have moved several times between his side and the back of the complainant's head and likely elsewhere. Dara Florence saw what was happening for a matter of seconds so what she saw was effectively a snapshot in time of where Olding's hands were. It's easy to see how there could be confusion between the complainant's account of where Olding's hands were in that snapshot in time and Florence's. Given the complainant's account that she was effectively "frozen", Olding could easily have removed his hands for a time and the complainant's head might not have moved. Also, her turning her head away doesn't mean she wasn't still effectively frozen.

Jackson's semen not being found in the swab from her vagina, which we learned of yesterday, is also a plus for the defence, though it doesn't mean Jackson didn't insert his penis into her vagina.

This is only my personal theory, but I suspect Jackson, while he had intent, might not have had much lead in his pencil and that's why he resorted to digital penetration.

The amount of drink taken over that period, what 7pm through to 3am at least in the morning, had there been drugs taken also? Not sure on the last one but hey the young ones nowadays!! I'd say her memory and the rugby lads memories are slightly off..

This is coming down to her word against theirs.. and is that enough to convict?

In a lot cases e.g. historical abuse, it can be.  Say a woman alleges a celebrity raped her in 1980, there are no witnesses, no forensics etc, it's who the jury believes.  If it comes down to that, then the accused will have to give evidence, if they don't the jury only have the alleged victim's story.  Speaking to a couple of solicitors over the weekend, the word is that she came across very well in the witness box.

But it's very difficult to come to a conclusive decision when you don't hear all the evidence.  Like everyone else on here my gut tells me something but you can't convict or acquit on your gut reaction.  I'd still say this case is 50/50 at the moment.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: MoChara on February 22, 2018, 01:39:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 22, 2018, 12:56:26 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 12:29:26 PM
The other thought nagging at me is what possible motive would the girl have for going this far if she didn't genuinely believe she was raped. It's a very courageous thing to do.

Listen if she was raped its the only thing to do!

The other motives could have been she was pushed into it, or said something and it got legs and before she knows shes well over her head and beyond pulling back, or very possibly thinking there was a video (or she thought there was) of the incident and is completely embarrassedif it every comes out.

The only ones that know were there that night, being a father of two girls (young women now!)  I hope they never find themselves having to embark down that road..

The possibility of a video I don't think leads to the pronouncement of a rape, surely if it was consensual it would more likely expose you as a liar. Unless I suppose it is taken with your other point of a knee jerk reaction that got out of hand quickly before any thought was involved.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 22, 2018, 02:45:52 PM
Quote from: MoChara on February 22, 2018, 01:39:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 22, 2018, 12:56:26 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 12:29:26 PM
The other thought nagging at me is what possible motive would the girl have for going this far if she didn't genuinely believe she was raped. It's a very courageous thing to do.

Listen if she was raped its the only thing to do!

The other motives could have been she was pushed into it, or said something and it got legs and before she knows shes well over her head and beyond pulling back, or very possibly thinking there was a video (or she thought there was) of the incident and is completely embarrassedif it every comes out.

The only ones that know were there that night, being a father of two girls (young women now!)  I hope they never find themselves having to embark down that road..

The possibility of a video I don't think leads to the pronouncement of a rape, surely if it was consensual it would more likely expose you as a liar. Unless I suppose it is taken with your other point of a knee jerk reaction that got out of hand quickly before any thought was involved.

But you can imagine how that would come across if you are from a respectable family and a night of madness you are caught with your trousers down and someone video's you and it goes on youtube!! If you have a job that would be in the public eye or say a doctor or barrister you'd be pretty pissed off, plus it could ruin your chances of getting a job in said areas!

Of course what Ive put up is about any one of us, not just the this case.... So glad i lived in a time of normality, bombings, shootings, raids, hurling/football, and youth clubs!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 22, 2018, 03:00:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 22, 2018, 02:45:52 PM
Quote from: MoChara on February 22, 2018, 01:39:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 22, 2018, 12:56:26 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 12:29:26 PM
The other thought nagging at me is what possible motive would the girl have for going this far if she didn't genuinely believe she was raped. It's a very courageous thing to do.

Listen if she was raped its the only thing to do!

The other motives could have been she was pushed into it, or said something and it got legs and before she knows shes well over her head and beyond pulling back, or very possibly thinking there was a video (or she thought there was) of the incident and is completely embarrassedif it every comes out.

The only ones that know were there that night, being a father of two girls (young women now!)  I hope they never find themselves having to embark down that road..

The possibility of a video I don't think leads to the pronouncement of a rape, surely if it was consensual it would more likely expose you as a liar. Unless I suppose it is taken with your other point of a knee jerk reaction that got out of hand quickly before any thought was involved.

But you can imagine how that would come across if you are from a respectable family and a night of madness you are caught with your trousers down and someone video's you and it goes on youtube!! If you have a job that would be in the public eye or say a doctor or barrister you'd be pretty pissed off, plus it could ruin your chances of getting a job in said areas!

Of course what Ive put up is about any one of us, not just the this case.... So glad i lived in a time of normality, bombings, shootings, raids, hurling/football, and youth clubs!!

You're so bad at trying to read the motives of a young woman I'd wonder when the last time you actually talked to one was.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 22, 2018, 03:09:19 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 12:29:26 PM
The other thought nagging at me is what possible motive would the girl have for going this far if she didn't genuinely believe she was raped. It's a very courageous thing to do.

Bar the perhaps obvious and perhaps excusable mis-statements, they could all be telling the truth, or their own biased version of it.

This is all pure speculation as to a potential version of events that could have happened where they would all be telling the "truth":

She got herself into a uncomfortable situation, didnt want to it go nearly as far as it went, but didnt know how to get out of it, so felt like she had no choice but to give in and go along with it. Then when no3 guy comes in, she gets her mojo back and decides enough's enough and leaves - perhaps when she realised someone else had seen her it helped straighten her thoughts.

Then almost immediately she gets really angry with the lads, her honest belief is it wasn't consensual, I didnt really want to take part in a 3some, she feels used, feels taken advantage of, feels raped. She tells her mates, and they suggest she has to go to the police.

But from Jackson's point of view, perhaps he thought here's girl a who fancies me.  She came to his house, she's not drinking, she's not with the 3 other girls, she's goes to his room and they start kissing. Hands start to wander, and she says Enough. She walks out. Paddy thinks, Dammit, I thought I was in. Girl comes back, Paddy thinks this is good. He starts again, thinking all he has to do is push the right button and she'll change her mind. He gets her into a compromising situation, she's not resisting. He's not holding her down, he's not preventing her from moving. She's not shouting Stop. He asks her to take off her top, she complies. So from his point of view, he doesn't think he's done a thing wrong.   

Olding comes in. Sees whats going on and decides to chance he arm. He lays down beside her, gets a blowie and thinks this is a great way to end a night. And then he's utterly astonished when police come knocking.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 22, 2018, 03:11:10 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 22, 2018, 03:09:19 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 12:29:26 PM
The other thought nagging at me is what possible motive would the girl have for going this far if she didn't genuinely believe she was raped. It's a very courageous thing to do.

Bar the perhaps obvious and perhaps excusable mis-statements, they could all be telling the truth, or their own biased version of it.

This is all pure speculation as to a potential version of events that could have happened where they would all be telling the "truth":

She got herself into a uncomfortable situation, didnt want to it go nearly as far as it went, but didnt know how to get out of it, so felt like she had no choice but to give in and go along with it. Then when no3 guy comes in, she gets her mojo back and decides enough's enough and leaves - perhaps when she realised someone else had seen her it helped straighten her thoughts.

Then almost immediately she gets really angry with the lads, her honest belief is it wasn't consensual, I didnt really want to take part in a 3some, she feels used, feels taken advantage of, feels raped. She tells her mates, and they suggest she has to go to the police.

But from Jackson's point of view, perhaps he thought here's girl a who fancies me.  She came to his house, she's not drinking, she's not with the 3 other girls, she's goes to his room and they start kissing. Hands start to wander, and she says Enough. She walks out. Paddy thinks, Dammit, I thought I was in. Girl comes back, Paddy thinks this is good. He starts again, thinking all he has to do is push the right button and she'll change her mind. He gets her into a compromising situation, she's not resisting. He's not holding her down, he's not preventing her from moving. She's not shouting Stop. He asks her to take off her top, she complies. So from his point of view, he doesn't think he's done a thing wrong.   

Olding comes in. Sees whats going on and decides to chance he arm. He lays down beside her, gets a blowie and thinks this is a great way to end a night. And then he's utterly astonished when police come knocking.

You have a very active and actively apologetic imagination.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on February 22, 2018, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 22, 2018, 03:11:10 PM

You have a very active and actively apologetic imagination.
What about those bruises on the thighs? Where they a product of your imagination?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 22, 2018, 03:42:27 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 22, 2018, 03:11:10 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 22, 2018, 03:09:19 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 12:29:26 PM
The other thought nagging at me is what possible motive would the girl have for going this far if she didn't genuinely believe she was raped. It's a very courageous thing to do.

Bar the perhaps obvious and perhaps excusable mis-statements, they could all be telling the truth, or their own biased version of it.

This is all pure speculation as to a potential version of events that could have happened where they would all be telling the "truth":

She got herself into a uncomfortable situation, didnt want to it go nearly as far as it went, but didnt know how to get out of it, so felt like she had no choice but to give in and go along with it. Then when no3 guy comes in, she gets her mojo back and decides enough's enough and leaves - perhaps when she realised someone else had seen her it helped straighten her thoughts.

Then almost immediately she gets really angry with the lads, her honest belief is it wasn't consensual, I didnt really want to take part in a 3some, she feels used, feels taken advantage of, feels raped. She tells her mates, and they suggest she has to go to the police.

But from Jackson's point of view, perhaps he thought here's girl a who fancies me.  She came to his house, she's not drinking, she's not with the 3 other girls, she's goes to his room and they start kissing. Hands start to wander, and she says Enough. She walks out. Paddy thinks, Dammit, I thought I was in. Girl comes back, Paddy thinks this is good. He starts again, thinking all he has to do is push the right button and she'll change her mind. He gets her into a compromising situation, she's not resisting. He's not holding her down, he's not preventing her from moving. She's not shouting Stop. He asks her to take off her top, she complies. So from his point of view, he doesn't think he's done a thing wrong.   

Olding comes in. Sees whats going on and decides to chance he arm. He lays down beside her, gets a blowie and thinks this is a great way to end a night. And then he's utterly astonished when police come knocking.

You have a very active and actively apologetic imagination.

Please explain how you know so categorically that the boys are guilty and the girl is innocent?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 22, 2018, 03:51:45 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 22, 2018, 03:42:27 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 22, 2018, 03:11:10 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 22, 2018, 03:09:19 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 12:29:26 PM
The other thought nagging at me is what possible motive would the girl have for going this far if she didn't genuinely believe she was raped. It's a very courageous thing to do.

Bar the perhaps obvious and perhaps excusable mis-statements, they could all be telling the truth, or their own biased version of it.

This is all pure speculation as to a potential version of events that could have happened where they would all be telling the "truth":

She got herself into a uncomfortable situation, didnt want to it go nearly as far as it went, but didnt know how to get out of it, so felt like she had no choice but to give in and go along with it. Then when no3 guy comes in, she gets her mojo back and decides enough's enough and leaves - perhaps when she realised someone else had seen her it helped straighten her thoughts.

Then almost immediately she gets really angry with the lads, her honest belief is it wasn't consensual, I didnt really want to take part in a 3some, she feels used, feels taken advantage of, feels raped. She tells her mates, and they suggest she has to go to the police.

But from Jackson's point of view, perhaps he thought here's girl a who fancies me.  She came to his house, she's not drinking, she's not with the 3 other girls, she's goes to his room and they start kissing. Hands start to wander, and she says Enough. She walks out. Paddy thinks, Dammit, I thought I was in. Girl comes back, Paddy thinks this is good. He starts again, thinking all he has to do is push the right button and she'll change her mind. He gets her into a compromising situation, she's not resisting. He's not holding her down, he's not preventing her from moving. She's not shouting Stop. He asks her to take off her top, she complies. So from his point of view, he doesn't think he's done a thing wrong.   

Olding comes in. Sees whats going on and decides to chance he arm. He lays down beside her, gets a blowie and thinks this is a great way to end a night. And then he's utterly astonished when police come knocking.

You have a very active and actively apologetic imagination.

Please explain how you know so categorically that the boys are guilty and the girl is innocent?

He hasn't a clue.  He's spoofing here to get a reaction.  Adds nothing to this board.

A similar character to Fearon - and should be treated as such.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Was the girl questioned on how her top came to be off? It seems inconsistent with  "everything about me was saying no physically". Would her top not have to have been ripped off in that case?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 22, 2018, 04:29:48 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Was the girl questioned on how her top came to be off? It seems inconsistent with  "everything about me was saying no physically". Would her top not have to have been ripped off in that case?

She's said that she took it off herself
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 04:39:53 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 22, 2018, 04:29:48 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Was the girl questioned on how her top came to be off? It seems inconsistent with  "everything about me was saying no physically". Would her top not have to have been ripped off in that case?

She's said that she took it off herself
I hadn't heard that. Well, taking your top off is certainly  inconsistent with  "everything about me was saying no physically". Call me crazy but i would regard a girl taking her top off as an indication of consent.

Has she specified anything that she did to indicate she wasn't consenting?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 22, 2018, 05:05:28 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 04:39:53 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 22, 2018, 04:29:48 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Was the girl questioned on how her top came to be off? It seems inconsistent with  "everything about me was saying no physically". Would her top not have to have been ripped off in that case?

She's said that she took it off herself
I hadn't heard that. Well, taking your top off is certainly  inconsistent with  "everything about me was saying no physically". Call me crazy but i would regard a girl taking her top off as an indication of consent.

Has she specified anything that she did to indicate she wasn't consenting?

I think it's pretty clear your understanding of consent is shoddy, and that's putting it generously. Consent can be withdrawn at any point. You can't half rape someone, it's a red line.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 22, 2018, 05:24:13 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 22, 2018, 04:29:48 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Was the girl questioned on how her top came to be off? It seems inconsistent with  "everything about me was saying no physically". Would her top not have to have been ripped off in that case?

She's said that she took it off herself

That was nice of her
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 05:36:40 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 22, 2018, 04:29:48 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Was the girl questioned on how her top came to be off? It seems inconsistent with  "everything about me was saying no physically". Would her top not have to have been ripped off in that case?

She's said that she took it off herself
She said she was ordered to take it off.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 22, 2018, 05:39:38 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 05:36:40 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 22, 2018, 04:29:48 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Was the girl questioned on how her top came to be off? It seems inconsistent with  "everything about me was saying no physically". Would her top not have to have been ripped off in that case?

She's said that she took it off herself
She said she was ordered to take it off.

MR2 and GetOverTheBar not doing themselves any favours I see.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 22, 2018, 06:06:52 PM
Some people think the boys are innocent, some think they are guilty. It's a discussion board for f**k sake.

Why do some posters feel the need to berate and act like condasending picks if people don't agree with their opinion.

Now where is that ducking ignore function
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: CiKe on February 22, 2018, 06:27:16 PM
Quote from: Hound on February 22, 2018, 03:09:19 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 22, 2018, 12:29:26 PM
The other thought nagging at me is what possible motive would the girl have for going this far if she didn't genuinely believe she was raped. It's a very courageous thing to do.

Bar the perhaps obvious and perhaps excusable mis-statements, they could all be telling the truth, or their own biased version of it.

This is all pure speculation as to a potential version of events that could have happened where they would all be telling the "truth":

She got herself into a uncomfortable situation, didnt want to it go nearly as far as it went, but didnt know how to get out of it, so felt like she had no choice but to give in and go along with it. Then when no3 guy comes in, she gets her mojo back and decides enough's enough and leaves - perhaps when she realised someone else had seen her it helped straighten her thoughts.

Then almost immediately she gets really angry with the lads, her honest belief is it wasn't consensual, I didnt really want to take part in a 3some, she feels used, feels taken advantage of, feels raped. She tells her mates, and they suggest she has to go to the police.

But from Jackson's point of view, perhaps he thought here's girl a who fancies me.  She came to his house, she's not drinking, she's not with the 3 other girls, she's goes to his room and they start kissing. Hands start to wander, and she says Enough. She walks out. Paddy thinks, Dammit, I thought I was in. Girl comes back, Paddy thinks this is good. He starts again, thinking all he has to do is push the right button and she'll change her mind. He gets her into a compromising situation, she's not resisting. He's not holding her down, he's not preventing her from moving. She's not shouting Stop. He asks her to take off her top, she complies. So from his point of view, he doesn't think he's done a thing wrong.   

Olding comes in. Sees whats going on and decides to chance he arm. He lays down beside her, gets a blowie and thinks this is a great way to end a night. And then he's utterly astonished when police come knocking.

This is what I have thought is a very plausible  situation  for a while. 3rd guy is the tipping point at which she thinks has been used and then thinks has been raped
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 22, 2018, 07:00:33 PM
http://www.rcni.ie/facts.aspx

I have just been raped. What should I Do?

Are you safe now? If not, you may need to ask for help.
You do not need to make any decisions now about reporting the assault to the Gardaí or PSNI but it is a good idea to leave your options open. Here are some points to remember:
•   Contact your local Rape Crisis Centre as soon as possible. A staff member will give you the information you need to help you make your decisions about what happens next and to support you in whatever you decide to do. This will include information about your nearest specialist Sexual Assault Treatment Unit (SATU) or PSNI Rape Suite.
•   You can ask a friend to contact the Rape Crisis Centre for you or ask a friend to come with you.
•   If you decide you might want to report the rape or sexual assault to the police, do not wash until after you have had a medical and forensic examination because important forensic evidence might be washed away.
•   If you were attacked in your mouth and you want to report it, don't eat, drink, smoke or use toothpaste or mouthwash until samples have been taken from your mouth area.             
•   Do not throw out or wash underwear or clothes that you were wearing at the time of the assault as these will be needed for forensic examination.

People react in different ways to being raped or sexually abused. There is no such thing as a 'typical reaction'.

Your reactions may include the following:

Immediate effects
Shock and withdrawal, panic and confusion, terror, disbelief and denial, feeling dirty, distressed, crying and shaking, calm and detached.

Short-term effects
Thinking constantly about the details of the rape, getting flashbacks, finding it hard to sleep and having nightmares, being jumpy, obsessive washing, physical trauma.

Long-term effects
Dramatic mood-swings, repeated flashbacks about the assault, blaming yourself,  guilt, fear, deep emotional pain, difficulty in trusting, difficulty in building new relationships, sexual difficulties, poor concentration and memory, difficulty coping with normal routines.

More about Trauma

What is trauma?
In dangerous situations, our defence system produces an adrenalin rush which helps us to be alert and to either fight or run. Traumatic reactions happen when we are overwhelmed and cannot fight or run. This can produce traumatic changes in the body and mind.

Disassociating
Many people experience a change in consciousness during trauma – if you cannot escape by getting away, you try to escape in your head. You may not feel any emotion or you may deny that anything happened to you at all. You may have experienced the trauma as if it was happening to someone else. You may not be able to remember parts of the traumatic event or your memory of it may feel completely unreal.

You may try to block out the memory by taking drugs or by drinking too much. For many, this is a normal reaction to a traumatic situation that helps you to survive in the short term. But it is important to realise that this short-term solution can become unhelpful and harmful in the longer term. If you can't stop, there is support out there to help you.

REMEMBER IT IS POSSIBLE TO HEAL FROM THE EFFECTS OF TRAUMA

Short-term effects
Being on permanent alert. You expect danger at any moment. This may result in being easily startled, reacting irritably to small things, not being able to sleep and eat as normal, or feeling intense fear and anxiety.
Flashbacks and nightmares. It may be impossible to forget the traumatic event, especially in the short term. Years later, the event can pop back into your memory. Flashbacks can be very vivid and detailed, yet it might be difficult to express in words what is happening in them.
Re-enacting dangerous situations. You may seek out dangerous situations to prove to yourself, for example, that the rape has not affected you.

Long term effects
Your self-esteem and personal power can be affected. The experience of sexual violence violates your boundaries and your sense of control in the world. Sexual violence can make you feel that your feelings or decisions are of little value.
You may carry guilt and shame, feel self-destructive or suicidal, or be addicted to alcohol or other drugs. The trauma may lead to mental illness. This can affect your expectations of how you should be treated and how you relate to others. Talking about your story and being believed can be a big step in regaining power and control in your life and in building up your sense of self-worth.

Your body
You may have developed an eating disorder, an addiction or another physical illness connected to your experience. If you find it hard to look at your body and listen to the messages it gives you, support and counselling can be a great help in learning to deal with this.

Your feelings
You may have survived the experience of sexual violence by going emotionally numb or by blocking out physical pain. Being numb worked for you – it got you through the trauma. You may have used it to survive ever since. Feeling the anger, fear, grief and sadness that you could not feel back then may be too scary. This may mean you can't feel the good emotions either or that you can't tell the difference between them. It is possible to recover and to feel a full range of feelings.

Intimacy
If you had a trusting relationship with your abuser, either from chatting to him or her for a short while or because he or she was a relative, you may now find it hard to trust anyone, to have close friends or to have a healthy and non-abusive relationship. You can change these feelings over time as you regain control over your life. Support from a friend or a counsellor can be a great help.

Sexuality
When there has been abuse, you may find you link sex with bad things. You may have disconnected from sexual feelings during the trauma. You might have been told that you didn't matter and that all you are good for is sex. Today, you may have difficulties in sexual relationships. Having sexual feelings may make you feel shame, disgust, pain or humiliation. You may find it impossible to have any sexual contact. You might find yourself looking for sex you really do not want or you might find it hard to say no. You may have had partners who have sexually abused you.
Over time, you can learn to identify your needs and to look after yourself. You can learn to build a safe and enjoyable sexual relationship and to work through the feelings of shame that might have been with you for a long time.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:01:47 PM
I was veering towards believing the girl until I learned that she'd taken her own top off. Okay she says she was ordered to do it(would a man usually ask a girl politely to take her top off during consensual sex?) but she can't remember who ordered her to do it(imo if she'd been told to do it in a threatening way she'd remember). She also claimed that she "froze" when asked why she didn't cry out for help, but when asked/told to take her top off she did. That doesn't add up to me. Imo it looks like regret, not rape,  at this stage. The police interviews should be revealing though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 22, 2018, 09:10:25 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:01:47 PM
I was veering towards believing the girl until I learned that she'd taken her own top off. Okay she says she was ordered to do it(would a man usually ask a girl politely to take her top off during consensual sex?) but she can't remember who ordered her to do it(imo if she'd been told to do it in a threatening way she'd remember). She also claimed that she "froze" when asked why she didn't cry out for help, but when asked/told to take her top off she did. That doesn't add up to me. Imo it looks like regret, not rape,  at this stage. The police interviews should be revealing though.

Don't lie Asal, you were never veering towards believing the victim in a rape case.

Some people here seem to think they can get away with hiding their predjuices behind the most perfunctory public attempts to pretend they gave the victim a chance. We're not falling for it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 22, 2018, 09:22:27 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:01:47 PM
I was veering towards believing the girl until I learned that she'd taken her own top off. Okay she says she was ordered to do it(would a man usually ask a girl politely to take her top off during consensual sex?) but she can't remember who ordered her to do it(imo if she'd been told to do it in a threatening way she'd remember). She also claimed that she "froze" when asked why she didn't cry out for help, but when asked/told to take her top off she did. That doesn't add up to me. Imo it looks like regret, not rape,  at this stage. The police interviews should be revealing though.
Would you not agree its possible your veering that way because you have a predetermined view of what rape is and what it looks like?  The vast majority of rapes are completely different from what we would see in a film.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 22, 2018, 09:25:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 22, 2018, 09:10:25 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:01:47 PM
I was veering towards believing the girl until I learned that she'd taken her own top off. Okay she says she was ordered to do it(would a man usually ask a girl politely to take her top off during consensual sex?) but she can't remember who ordered her to do it(imo if she'd been told to do it in a threatening way she'd remember). She also claimed that she "froze" when asked why she didn't cry out for help, but when asked/told to take her top off she did. That doesn't add up to me. Imo it looks like regret, not rape,  at this stage. The police interviews should be revealing though.

Don't lie Asal, you were never veering towards believing the victim in a rape case.

Some people here seem to think they can get away with hiding their predjuices behind the most perfunctory public attempts to pretend they gave the victim a chance. We're not falling for it.

We're not falling for it? Have you already judged it and giving off about other people judging it? Weirdo
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 22, 2018, 09:26:24 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 22, 2018, 09:10:25 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:01:47 PM
I was veering towards believing the girl until I learned that she'd taken her own top off. Okay she says she was ordered to do it(would a man usually ask a girl politely to take her top off during consensual sex?) but she can't remember who ordered her to do it(imo if she'd been told to do it in a threatening way she'd remember). She also claimed that she "froze" when asked why she didn't cry out for help, but when asked/told to take her top off she did. That doesn't add up to me. Imo it looks like regret, not rape,  at this stage. The police interviews should be revealing though.

Don't lie Asal, you were never veering towards believing the victim in a rape case.

Some people here seem to think they can get away with hiding their predjuices behind the most perfunctory public attempts to pretend they gave the victim a chance. We're not falling for it.

We??

Who is this 'we' you speak of??!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 22, 2018, 09:29:03 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 22, 2018, 09:22:27 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:01:47 PM
I was veering towards believing the girl until I learned that she'd taken her own top off. Okay she says she was ordered to do it(would a man usually ask a girl politely to take her top off during consensual sex?) but she can't remember who ordered her to do it(imo if she'd been told to do it in a threatening way she'd remember). She also claimed that she "froze" when asked why she didn't cry out for help, but when asked/told to take her top off she did. That doesn't add up to me. Imo it looks like regret, not rape,  at this stage. The police interviews should be revealing though.
Would you not agree its possible your veering that way because you have a predetermined view of what rape is and what it looks like?  The vast majority of rapes are completely different from what we would see in a film.

+1
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:39:30 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 22, 2018, 09:22:27 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:01:47 PM
I was veering towards believing the girl until I learned that she'd taken her own top off. Okay she says she was ordered to do it(would a man usually ask a girl politely to take her top off during consensual sex?) but she can't remember who ordered her to do it(imo if she'd been told to do it in a threatening way she'd remember). She also claimed that she "froze" when asked why she didn't cry out for help, but when asked/told to take her top off she did. That doesn't add up to me. Imo it looks like regret, not rape,  at this stage. The police interviews should be revealing though.
Would you not agree its possible your veering that way because you have a predetermined view of what rape is and what it looks like?  The vast majority of rapes are completely different from what we would see in a film.
Don't think so Mucker. I can accept that a girl could freeze and not struggle and my earlier posts on the thread would show I was inclined to believe her, but taking off her own top  because she was "ordered to" and yet being unable to recall which man ordered her to do so is something that doesn't add up to me at all.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:43:10 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 22, 2018, 09:26:24 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 22, 2018, 09:10:25 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:01:47 PM
I was veering towards believing the girl until I learned that she'd taken her own top off. Okay she says she was ordered to do it(would a man usually ask a girl politely to take her top off during consensual sex?) but she can't remember who ordered her to do it(imo if she'd been told to do it in a threatening way she'd remember). She also claimed that she "froze" when asked why she didn't cry out for help, but when asked/told to take her top off she did. That doesn't add up to me. Imo it looks like regret, not rape,  at this stage. The police interviews should be revealing though.

Don't lie Asal, you were never veering towards believing the victim in a rape case.

Some people here seem to think they can get away with hiding their predjuices behind the most perfunctory public attempts to pretend they gave the victim a chance. We're not falling for it.

We??

Who is this 'we' you speak of??!!
He's held in such high esteem here that "we" could be any number of people who have asked him to speak on their behalves.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:51:19 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:39:30 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 22, 2018, 09:22:27 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:01:47 PM
I was veering towards believing the girl until I learned that she'd taken her own top off. Okay she says she was ordered to do it(would a man usually ask a girl politely to take her top off during consensual sex?) but she can't remember who ordered her to do it(imo if she'd been told to do it in a threatening way she'd remember). She also claimed that she "froze" when asked why she didn't cry out for help, but when asked/told to take her top off she did. That doesn't add up to me. Imo it looks like regret, not rape,  at this stage. The police interviews should be revealing though.
Would you not agree its possible your veering that way because you have a predetermined view of what rape is and what it looks like?  The vast majority of rapes are completely different from what we would see in a film.
Don't think so Mucker. I can accept that a girl could freeze and not struggle and my earlier posts on the thread would show I was inclined to believe her, but taking off her own top  because she was "ordered to" and yet being unable to recall which man ordered her to do so is something that doesn't add up to me at all.
If for example she had said "Olding ordered me to take my top off and I felt he was going to hurt me if I didn't" I could accept that, but to not remember and expect the jury to still accept the claim that she had done it due to intimidation and hadn't done so willingly is a huge stretch.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 22, 2018, 10:29:10 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 22, 2018, 05:39:38 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 05:36:40 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 22, 2018, 04:29:48 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Was the girl questioned on how her top came to be off? It seems inconsistent with  "everything about me was saying no physically". Would her top not have to have been ripped off in that case?

She's said that she took it off herself
She said she was ordered to take it off.

MR2 and GetOverTheBar not doing themselves any favours I see.

Please forgive me, I do strive for attention....on an internet message board.

Christ almighty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 22, 2018, 10:37:55 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:51:19 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:39:30 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 22, 2018, 09:22:27 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:01:47 PM
I was veering towards believing the girl until I learned that she'd taken her own top off. Okay she says she was ordered to do it(would a man usually ask a girl politely to take her top off during consensual sex?) but she can't remember who ordered her to do it(imo if she'd been told to do it in a threatening way she'd remember). She also claimed that she "froze" when asked why she didn't cry out for help, but when asked/told to take her top off she did. That doesn't add up to me. Imo it looks like regret, not rape,  at this stage. The police interviews should be revealing though.
Would you not agree its possible your veering that way because you have a predetermined view of what rape is and what it looks like?  The vast majority of rapes are completely different from what we would see in a film.
Don't think so Mucker. I can accept that a girl could freeze and not struggle and my earlier posts on the thread would show I was inclined to believe her, but taking off her own top  because she was "ordered to" and yet being unable to recall which man ordered her to do so is something that doesn't add up to me at all.
If for example she had said "Olding ordered me to take my top off and I felt he was going to hurt me if I didn't" I could accept that, but to not remember and expect the jury to still accept the claim that she had done it due to intimidation and hadn't done so willingly is a huge stretch.
Why, they could have been lying in the dark and they probably have the same Malowne rowd accent? Could be hard to work out which one said it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 10:42:41 PM
Was the light off? I assumed it was on since the girl who peeked in saw everything.

She didn't say she couldn't tell. She said she couldn't recall.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 22, 2018, 10:45:57 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 22, 2018, 10:29:10 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 22, 2018, 05:39:38 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 22, 2018, 05:36:40 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on February 22, 2018, 04:29:48 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Was the girl questioned on how her top came to be off? It seems inconsistent with  "everything about me was saying no physically". Would her top not have to have been ripped off in that case?

She's said that she took it off herself
She said she was ordered to take it off.

MR2 and GetOverTheBar not doing themselves any favours I see.

Please forgive me, I do strive for attention....on an internet message board.

Christ almighty.

Do you not realise that this site is a barometer to how popular you are? Hmm
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 22, 2018, 10:52:31 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 10:42:41 PM
Was the light off? I assumed it was on since the girl who peeked in saw everything.

She didn't say she couldn't tell. She said she couldn't recall.
I'm not sure, it could have been. It hasn't said anywhere has it? These are the details that make it difficult to tell what went on that night. The hall light could have lit up the room when opened, the bed could have been right in front of the door therefore giving the witness a full view of events even with the light off. Or the light could have been on. She could have kept her eyes closed, could have been in auto pilot mode and just did what she was told.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 22, 2018, 11:00:23 PM
Jesus so many things! So impossible to work out. So with all that uncertainty do you think they did it and a jury will?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 08:24:20 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:51:19 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:39:30 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 22, 2018, 09:22:27 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:01:47 PM
I was veering towards believing the girl until I learned that she'd taken her own top off. Okay she says she was ordered to do it(would a man usually ask a girl politely to take her top off during consensual sex?) but she can't remember who ordered her to do it(imo if she'd been told to do it in a threatening way she'd remember). She also claimed that she "froze" when asked why she didn't cry out for help, but when asked/told to take her top off she did. That doesn't add up to me. Imo it looks like regret, not rape,  at this stage. The police interviews should be revealing though.
Would you not agree its possible your veering that way because you have a predetermined view of what rape is and what it looks like?  The vast majority of rapes are completely different from what we would see in a film.
Don't think so Mucker. I can accept that a girl could freeze and not struggle and my earlier posts on the thread would show I was inclined to believe her, but taking off her own top  because she was "ordered to" and yet being unable to recall which man ordered her to do so is something that doesn't add up to me at all.
If for example she had said "Olding ordered me to take my top off and I felt he was going to hurt me if I didn't" I could accept that, but to not remember and expect the jury to still accept the claim that she had done it due to intimidation and hadn't done so willingly is a huge stretch.
I would accept that there is a possibility you are right.  I would still doubt it though given the girls consistent evidence on the stand, but nevertheless that will be a factor for the jury.  I just find it odd that someone could be so adamant that the act of taking her top off, would determine if a rape took place or hadn't.  Given the nature of a lot of rapes, ie nonviolent, victim compliant.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 23, 2018, 08:28:56 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 08:24:20 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:51:19 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:39:30 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 22, 2018, 09:22:27 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:01:47 PM
I was veering towards believing the girl until I learned that she'd taken her own top off. Okay she says she was ordered to do it(would a man usually ask a girl politely to take her top off during consensual sex?) but she can't remember who ordered her to do it(imo if she'd been told to do it in a threatening way she'd remember). She also claimed that she "froze" when asked why she didn't cry out for help, but when asked/told to take her top off she did. That doesn't add up to me. Imo it looks like regret, not rape,  at this stage. The police interviews should be revealing though.
Would you not agree its possible your veering that way because you have a predetermined view of what rape is and what it looks like?  The vast majority of rapes are completely different from what we would see in a film.
Don't think so Mucker. I can accept that a girl could freeze and not struggle and my earlier posts on the thread would show I was inclined to believe her, but taking off her own top  because she was "ordered to" and yet being unable to recall which man ordered her to do so is something that doesn't add up to me at all.
If for example she had said "Olding ordered me to take my top off and I felt he was going to hurt me if I didn't" I could accept that, but to not remember and expect the jury to still accept the claim that she had done it due to intimidation and hadn't done so willingly is a huge stretch.
I would accept that there is a possibility you are right.  I would still doubt it though given the girls consistent evidence on the stand, but nevertheless that will be a factor for the jury.  I just find it odd that someone could be so adamant that the act of taking her top off, would determine if a rape took place or hadn't. Given the nature of a lot of rapes, ie nonviolent, victim compliant.

Most lads can't grasp that concept.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 08:46:02 AM
Mucker it's not just the fact that she took her top off. It's that she wants the jury to believe she did it under intimidation but can't remember who told her to take it off. I've said that 2 or 3 times already though and you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting what I said to suit your point.

Seanie, you're getting as bad as Syf for the condescending, self-righteous remarks and it seems to be a theme with one side of the argument in this thread.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 09:01:24 AM
She has at various times said "everything about me was saying no physically" and that she "froze" but yet took off her top when "ordered to" but can't remember who ordered her. There's huge inconsistency there and to me it points to her going along with and seeming outwardly to be a willing participant while a voice in her head was saying "I don't want to be doing this". I wouldn't convict someone of rape from what I've heard. That's just my opinion and I'm able to express it without being self-righteous or making snide remarks aimed at others.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 09:08:24 AM
MS is just a grumpy auld f**ker!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 09:40:59 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 08:46:02 AM
Mucker it's not just the fact that she took her top off. It's that she wants the jury to believe she did it under intimidation but can't remember who told her to take it off. I've said that 2 or 3 times already though and you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting what I said to suit your point.

Seanie, you're getting as bad as Syf for the condescending, self-righteous remarks and it seems to be a theme with one side of the argument in this thread.
Apologies Asal Mor, I wasn't trying to misrepresent you.  I just don't find the claim that she cant remember who told her to, as that important.  Again, it will be up to the jury to determine how much weight they put in that, but I cant imagine someone with all the relevant information and evidence placing much on it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 09:50:07 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 08:46:02 AM
Mucker it's not just the fact that she took her top off. It's that she wants the jury to believe she did it under intimidation but can't remember who told her to take it off. I've said that 2 or 3 times already though and you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting what I said to suit your point.

Seanie, you're getting as bad as Syf for the condescending, self-righteous remarks and it seems to be a theme with one side of the argument in this thread.

The issue for the jury should be that no matter who "told" her to take off her top or whether she took it off voluntarily, the fact that she took off her top does not mean that she was consenting to have sex.  To make it more complex, as someone else posted, consent can be given and then withdrawn at any time.  I wouldn't fancy being a juror on this one.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:00:03 AM
Myths about rape

https://www.idas.org.uk/our-services/sexual-violence/myths-about-rape/
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 10:02:06 AM
The fact that they were pissed will have a bearing on this, with no real hard medical evidence and witnesses not saying it looked like rape i find it hard that there will be enough to say, without doubt that this was rape, it could have well been and I hope that if it was rape then they get done good and proper. Just not conviced enough

Watched death row thing on TV the other night, there is a guy on death row who's there based on a 6 year olds ability to pick a man out from a line up after her mum was killed... No other evidence! now again he could have been the murderer but would you as a juror be happy with that type of case to convict knowing the outcome is the death penalty?

I'd find it very hard to be on a jury on a murder case, unless it was clear cut
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:00:03 AM
Myths about rape

https://www.idas.org.uk/our-services/sexual-violence/myths-about-rape/

Job done, no point having court cases then and wasting that amount of tax payers money.. only 5% will be false according to the police
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:10:22 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:00:03 AM
Myths about rape

https://www.idas.org.uk/our-services/sexual-violence/myths-about-rape/

Job done, no point having court cases then and wasting that amount of tax payers money.. only 5% will be false according to the police
Other than Syferus who is even insinuating that? 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 10:21:45 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:10:22 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:00:03 AM
Myths about rape

https://www.idas.org.uk/our-services/sexual-violence/myths-about-rape/

Job done, no point having court cases then and wasting that amount of tax payers money.. only 5% will be false according to the police
Other than Syferus who is even insinuating that?

Anyone who has judged this case found them guilty before all the evidence is read out!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 23, 2018, 10:32:50 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:00:03 AM
Myths about rape

https://www.idas.org.uk/our-services/sexual-violence/myths-about-rape/

No offence but I could have wrote this article and I am by no means an expert on the intricacies of sexual crime.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 23, 2018, 10:38:28 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 10:21:45 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:10:22 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:00:03 AM
Myths about rape

https://www.idas.org.uk/our-services/sexual-violence/myths-about-rape/

Job done, no point having court cases then and wasting that amount of tax payers money.. only 5% will be false according to the police
Other than Syferus who is even insinuating that?

Anyone who has judged this case found them guilty before all the evidence is read out!

Pretty much everyone on the thread other than Syferus has said it's hard to see how they'll be convicted.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 23, 2018, 10:39:59 AM
Same as that, can't see a conviction. Beyond reasonable doubt is a high bar. Is a verdict maybe in America... case not proven maybe appropriate in trials.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on February 23, 2018, 11:21:35 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 23, 2018, 08:28:56 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 08:24:20 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:51:19 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:39:30 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 22, 2018, 09:22:27 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 22, 2018, 09:01:47 PM
I was veering towards believing the girl until I learned that she'd taken her own top off. Okay she says she was ordered to do it(would a man usually ask a girl politely to take her top off during consensual sex?) but she can't remember who ordered her to do it(imo if she'd been told to do it in a threatening way she'd remember). She also claimed that she "froze" when asked why she didn't cry out for help, but when asked/told to take her top off she did. That doesn't add up to me. Imo it looks like regret, not rape,  at this stage. The police interviews should be revealing though.
Would you not agree its possible your veering that way because you have a predetermined view of what rape is and what it looks like?  The vast majority of rapes are completely different from what we would see in a film.
Don't think so Mucker. I can accept that a girl could freeze and not struggle and my earlier posts on the thread would show I was inclined to believe her, but taking off her own top  because she was "ordered to" and yet being unable to recall which man ordered her to do so is something that doesn't add up to me at all.
If for example she had said "Olding ordered me to take my top off and I felt he was going to hurt me if I didn't" I could accept that, but to not remember and expect the jury to still accept the claim that she had done it due to intimidation and hadn't done so willingly is a huge stretch.
I would accept that there is a possibility you are right.  I would still doubt it though given the girls consistent evidence on the stand, but nevertheless that will be a factor for the jury.  I just find it odd that someone could be so adamant that the act of taking her top off, would determine if a rape took place or hadn't. Given the nature of a lot of rapes, ie nonviolent, victim compliant.

Most lads can't grasp that concept.

Compliance makes perfect sense in a threatening situation. There doesn't appear to me to have ever been the case made that the alleged victim was in fear of violence or felt threatened. Compliance in a non-threatening situation does not make sense, especially when there were numerous opportunities to ask for help, or extricate from situation.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 11:21:48 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 23, 2018, 10:32:50 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:00:03 AM
Myths about rape

https://www.idas.org.uk/our-services/sexual-violence/myths-about-rape/

No offence but I could have wrote this article and I am by no means an expert on the intricacies of sexual crime.
Exactly. That's basically the point, but yet how many times have we seen posters on here propagate these misconceptions?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 11:49:49 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 11:21:48 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 23, 2018, 10:32:50 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:00:03 AM
Myths about rape

https://www.idas.org.uk/our-services/sexual-violence/myths-about-rape/

No offence but I could have wrote this article and I am by no means an expert on the intricacies of sexual crime.
Exactly. That's basically the point, but yet how many times have we seen posters on here propagate these misconceptions?

Repeatedly. But then they don't even have the perspective to understand they are wrong about rape nor why those misconceptions are so damaging to women.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trueblue1234 on February 23, 2018, 12:01:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 11:49:49 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 11:21:48 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 23, 2018, 10:32:50 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:00:03 AM
Myths about rape

https://www.idas.org.uk/our-services/sexual-violence/myths-about-rape/

No offence but I could have wrote this article and I am by no means an expert on the intricacies of sexual crime.
Exactly. That's basically the point, but yet how many times have we seen posters on here propagate these misconceptions?

Repeatedly. But then they don't even have the perspective to understand they are wrong about rape nor why those misconceptions are so damaging to women.

I think Fionn nailed Sfy with the below. Absolutely spot on.


Quote from: Fionntamhnach on February 08, 2018, 06:32:35 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 08, 2018, 04:25:55 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on February 08, 2018, 03:16:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 08, 2018, 02:53:37 PM
I think it's quite interesting that Syferus is being rounded on here when there are a lot of posters here who have clearly made up their minds in the opposite direction based on nothing more than "rumour, wild speculation and innuendo", as the previous poster puts it.

Certainly the rumour and innuendo so far has been pretty much one way traffic against the complainant.

I haven't made up my mind and won't pass judgment on either party. However flawed the judicial system is,  its the best way to determine innocence or guilt.
How can Syferis pre-determine who is the innocent party based on media reports. To criticise other posters is to criticise himself.
If you study his post on any subject their is a constant theme of using it to project an image of superiority and condescension through belittling the average view. I find his writing quite delusional and completely devoid of any class or balance.
If he pulled the plug on this board you won't find too many expressing thoughts of sorrow and disappointment.
One the worst posters on the board.

Unfortunately Sfy has made this thread about him rather than the issue at hand. And you can be sure that is there is a guilty verdict, he will see this as victory and will point to other posters who had stated they would rather wait to see the rest of the evidence before making a decision as being wrong. He will play it out, trying to reinforce his superiority despite still being completely incorrect to make a decision based on one day's evidence.

Unfortunately he pollutes too many threads now.

I'm a little reluctant to take this thread off-topic more than it already has, but as it is...

...I have been messing about on the interwebs since around 1999 when I was first exposed to it as a naive, wild-eyed teen and ever since then I've participated on quite a lot of forums, message boards, chatrooms, newsgroups etc. right up to this day. And in my experience I don't think I've ever came across a poster/member/individual of any forum etc. that I have been on, or even in the off-line world, that displays a more blatant, stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect than the poster on this board who goes under the handle of Syferus. It is f*cking painful to read most of his/her posts, even though I have him/her on ignore they are inevitably quoted by others in response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131125-why-the-stupid-say-theyre-smart

And back on-topic, the trial has only really just begun, I'll wait until all evidence has been presented before I even being to start forming an opinion.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Ty4Sam on February 23, 2018, 12:06:59 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 09:50:07 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 08:46:02 AM
Mucker it's not just the fact that she took her top off. It's that she wants the jury to believe she did it under intimidation but can't remember who told her to take it off. I've said that 2 or 3 times already though and you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting what I said to suit your point.

Seanie, you're getting as bad as Syf for the condescending, self-righteous remarks and it seems to be a theme with one side of the argument in this thread.

The issue for the jury should be that no matter who "told" her to take off her top or whether she took it off voluntarily, the fact that she took off her top does not mean that she was consenting to have sex.  To make it more complex, as someone else posted, consent can be given and then withdrawn at any time.  I wouldn't fancy being a juror on this one.

Interesting point. If someone has given consent and then withdraws it during the 'incident' they surely have to make that known to the other person/persons? Would this have to be done verbally ie. 'no'?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 23, 2018, 12:34:06 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 23, 2018, 10:38:28 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 10:21:45 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:10:22 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:00:03 AM
Myths about rape

https://www.idas.org.uk/our-services/sexual-violence/myths-about-rape/

Job done, no point having court cases then and wasting that amount of tax payers money.. only 5% will be false according to the police
Other than Syferus who is even insinuating that?

Anyone who has judged this case found them guilty before all the evidence is read out!

Pretty much everyone on the thread other than Syferus has said it's hard to see how they'll be convicted.

I think it looks more likely than not that they will be convicted, particularly after what has happened this morning.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 12:42:57 PM
or what happened on the night is probably why they wont get convicted?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 23, 2018, 12:46:13 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/nicola-anderson-clothes-worn-by-olding-on-night-of-alleged-rape-never-recovered-court-hears-36626819.html

while Mr Olding's home had been searched during the time he was being interviewed and other items of clothing retrieved, the outfit he had worn on the night was not retrieved, Frank O'Donoghue QC ascertained.

The court did not hear the reason behind this and no suggestions were proffered.

 https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/semen-of-ulster-rugby-star-olding-found-on-alleged-victims-clothes-36630706.html

Semen containing the DNA of Ulster and Ireland rugby player Stuart Olding was found on the clothes of a woman he is accused of raping, a court has heard.

Samples taken from the young woman's clothes she wore on the night of the alleged attack were examined by a senior forensic scientist.

Giving evidence in court, the Forensic Service officer confirmed that traces of Mr Olding's semen were found on the complainant's white jeans, underwear and black sequins top.

Mr Olding (24) and his teammate Paddy Jackson (26) deny rape.

Mr Jackson denies a further charge of sexual assault.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 12:51:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 12:42:57 PM
or what happened on the night is probably why they wont get convicted?

Still showing yourself up I see.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 12:55:49 PM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on February 23, 2018, 12:06:59 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 09:50:07 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 08:46:02 AM
Mucker it's not just the fact that she took her top off. It's that she wants the jury to believe she did it under intimidation but can't remember who told her to take it off. I've said that 2 or 3 times already though and you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting what I said to suit your point.

Seanie, you're getting as bad as Syf for the condescending, self-righteous remarks and it seems to be a theme with one side of the argument in this thread.

The issue for the jury should be that no matter who "told" her to take off her top or whether she took it off voluntarily, the fact that she took off her top does not mean that she was consenting to have sex.  To make it more complex, as someone else posted, consent can be given and then withdrawn at any time.  I wouldn't fancy being a juror on this one.

Interesting point. If someone has given consent and then withdraws it during the 'incident' they surely have to make that known to the other person/persons? Would this have to be done verbally ie. 'no'?

I'm not saying that this happened in this case, just on a general point, I'm no expert but I would think if a woman consented to sex and then changed her mind she would likely have to make that known verbally.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 12:56:36 PM
Paddy Jackson's statement sounds less than convincing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 01:00:12 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 12:56:36 PM
Paddy Jackson's statement sounds less than convincing.

And Olding freely admitted to having downed the worth of 16 or 17 pints of alcohol before getting to the after-party at Jackson's House..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 01:02:22 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 01:00:12 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 12:56:36 PM
Paddy Jackson's statement sounds less than convincing.

And Olding freely admitted to having downed the worth of 16 or 17 pints of alcohol before getting to the after-party at Jackson's House..

Yep. He drank enough to put me asleep for a week.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 01:13:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 01:00:12 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 12:56:36 PM
Paddy Jackson's statement sounds less than convincing.

And Olding freely admitted to having downed the worth of 16 or 17 pints of alcohol before getting to the after-party at Jackson's House..

How he managed to produce that amount of semen after that amount of drinks is commendable
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 01:16:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 01:13:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 01:00:12 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 12:56:36 PM
Paddy Jackson's statement sounds less than convincing.

And Olding freely admitted to having downed the worth of 16 or 17 pints of alcohol before getting to the after-party at Jackson's House..

How he managed to produce that amount of semen after that amount of drinks is commendable

Disgusting.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 23, 2018, 01:32:16 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 12:56:36 PM
Paddy Jackson's statement sounds less than convincing.
On what basis? I have just read it (or part of it) on BBC News and it seems as convincing as you find it unconvincing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 01:33:39 PM
Going by Frank Greaney's tweets Jackson was interviewed by police four times.  In three of the four interviews he "No Commented".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 01:35:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 01:00:12 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 12:56:36 PM
Paddy Jackson's statement sounds less than convincing.
And Olding freely admitted to having downed the worth of 16 or 17 pints of alcohol before getting to the after-party at Jackson's House..

It would have been interesting to see the reaction had the alleged victim drank that much.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 01:35:28 PM
He says she started giving him Oral, and then when Olding came in they switched positions, but he used his fingers. Olding says when he came in the girl was straddling Jackson, and they were kissing. Jacksons sounds like he's trying to minimise what happened. 'She started blowing me, I couldn't finish, so I 'swapped' with Olding and started using my fingers'. It doesn't ring true.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on February 23, 2018, 01:36:13 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 23, 2018, 01:32:16 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 12:56:36 PM
Paddy Jackson's statement sounds less than convincing.
On what basis? I have just read it (or part of it) on BBC News and it seems as convincing as you find it unconvincing.

Inconsistencies with Harrison's evidence for a start.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 01:38:15 PM
There are a few important things Olding can't remember about his jeans.  Who took them off and what happened to them afterwards!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Link on February 23, 2018, 01:38:34 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 01:33:39 PM
Going by Frank Greaney's tweets Jackson was interviewed by police four times.  In three of the four interviews he "No Commented".

He did make a comment in the first one but it was finished early due to "lack of pre-interview disclosure". Probably just doing what his solicitor told him to do.

What else are you looking him to say? The 3rd interview was fairly detailed which happened on the same day as the 2nd interview.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 01:38:15 PM
There are a few important things Olding can't remember about his jeans.  Who took them off and what happened to them afterwards!
Fairly standard after drinking 16 pints
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 01:45:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 01:38:15 PM
There are a few important things Olding can't remember about his jeans.  Who took them off and what happened to them afterwards!
Fairly standard after drinking 16 pints

Doesn't do the believability of his statements much favours.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 01:51:08 PM
Quote from: Link on February 23, 2018, 01:38:34 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 01:33:39 PM
Going by Frank Greaney's tweets Jackson was interviewed by police four times.  In three of the four interviews he "No Commented".

He did make a comment in the first one but it was finished early due to "lack of pre-interview disclosure". Probably just doing what his solicitor told him to do.

What else are you looking him to say? The 3rd interview was fairly detailed which happened on the same day as the 2nd interview.

Just reporting the facts of the case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 23, 2018, 01:51:18 PM
Seriously why the f**k do they start a trial @ 10am then finish it at 1/2pm?

Then the judge was giving out that they were behind schedule?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 01:52:09 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 23, 2018, 01:51:18 PM
Seriously why the f**k do they start a trial @ 10am then finish it at 1/2pm?

Then the judge was giving out that they were behind schedule?

In fairness, probably a lot to process at the end of a long week. Although they had yesterday off as well I suppose.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 01:54:44 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 01:45:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 01:38:15 PM
There are a few important things Olding can't remember about his jeans.  Who took them off and what happened to them afterwards!
Fairly standard after drinking 16 pints

Doesn't do the believability of his statements much favours.

Or any of them surely? They were all pissed, this was 3am in the morning back at a party were more drinks were drank. By all their admissions ythings were a bit hazy, I'm not surprised there is problems with the statements..

Was out on Saturday night, Thought I'd left the Harp bar around 2.30, got taxi home collapsed in bed.. Nope mate told me we left then tried to get in a nightclub, obviously we didnt get in (thank feck) then i went home! No recollection at all, and i thought i didnt have that much!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 01:56:23 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 01:54:44 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 01:45:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 01:38:15 PM
There are a few important things Olding can't remember about his jeans.  Who took them off and what happened to them afterwards!
Fairly standard after drinking 16 pints

Doesn't do the believability of his statements much favours.

Or any of them surely? They were all pissed, this was 3am in the morning back at a party were more drinks were drank. By all their admissions ythings were a bit hazy, I'm not surprised there is problems with the statements..

Was out on Saturday night, Thought I'd left the Harp bar around 2.30, got taxi home collapsed in bed.. Nope mate told me we left then tried to get in a nightclub, obviously we didnt get in (thank feck) then i went home! No recollection at all, and i thought i didnt have that much!

Were you able to find the clothes you had worn on Saturday the next day? ;D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 01:57:46 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 01:56:23 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 01:54:44 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 01:45:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 01:38:15 PM
There are a few important things Olding can't remember about his jeans.  Who took them off and what happened to them afterwards!
Fairly standard after drinking 16 pints

Doesn't do the believability of his statements much favours.

Or any of them surely? They were all pissed, this was 3am in the morning back at a party were more drinks were drank. By all their admissions ythings were a bit hazy, I'm not surprised there is problems with the statements..

Was out on Saturday night, Thought I'd left the Harp bar around 2.30, got taxi home collapsed in bed.. Nope mate told me we left then tried to get in a nightclub, obviously we didnt get in (thank feck) then i went home! No recollection at all, and i thought i didnt have that much!

Were you able to find the clothes you had worn on Saturday the next day? ;D

Just about...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 23, 2018, 02:09:59 PM
Going on Frank Greaney's tweets it looks like the Jackson's and Olding's stories differ. And they're contradicted by other evidence from various sources. If it does come down to who the jury believe is telling the truth......
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 23, 2018, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 01:13:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 01:00:12 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 12:56:36 PM
Paddy Jackson's statement sounds less than convincing.

And Olding freely admitted to having downed the worth of 16 or 17 pints of alcohol before getting to the after-party at Jackson's House..

How he managed to produce that amount of semen after that amount of drinks is commendable

Ya. A real hero.  ::)

Pathetic comment.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 02:12:57 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 23, 2018, 02:09:59 PM
Going on Frank Greaney's tweets it looks like the Jackson's and Olding's stories differ. And they're contradicted by other evidence from various sources. If it does come down to who the jury believe is telling the truth......

It does. As it was always likely to.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 02:15:27 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 23, 2018, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 01:13:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 01:00:12 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 12:56:36 PM
Paddy Jackson's statement sounds less than convincing.

And Olding freely admitted to having downed the worth of 16 or 17 pints of alcohol before getting to the after-party at Jackson's House..

How he managed to produce that amount of semen after that amount of drinks is commendable

Ya. A real hero.  ::)

Pathetic comment.

Ok, it was in bad taste...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 23, 2018, 02:15:56 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 02:12:57 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 23, 2018, 02:09:59 PM
Going on Frank Greaney's tweets it looks like the Jackson's and Olding's stories differ. And they're contradicted by other evidence from various sources. If it does come down to who the jury believe is telling the truth......

It does. As it was always likely to.

I thought that was very telling. The only one who seems to be fairly consistent with their stories is the IP. Today's evidence is not good for Olding and Jackson as they come across as arrogant drunks who have contradictory stories. This will not sit well with the jury.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 23, 2018, 02:20:04 PM
From Frank Greaney in court:

Before going back to Paddy Jackson's house for an afters party, Stuart Olding tells police he drank:

8 tins of Carlsberg
4 pints of Guinness
2 Gin & Tonics
5 vodka lemonades
3 shots of Tequila and Sambuca


I'm not a drinker but I would have thought that this is a fair amount of alcohol to absorb and still be with your senses and on your feet.  Certainly giving a good impression of the off-season professional Ulster rugby player.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 23, 2018, 02:21:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 02:15:27 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 23, 2018, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 01:13:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 01:00:12 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 12:56:36 PM
Paddy Jackson's statement sounds less than convincing.

And Olding freely admitted to having downed the worth of 16 or 17 pints of alcohol before getting to the after-party at Jackson's House..

How he managed to produce that amount of semen after that amount of drinks is commendable

Ya. A real hero.  ::)

Pathetic comment.

Ok, it was in bad taste...

Thanks for acknowledging that. Fair play.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 02:23:42 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 23, 2018, 02:15:56 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 02:12:57 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 23, 2018, 02:09:59 PM
Going on Frank Greaney's tweets it looks like the Jackson's and Olding's stories differ. And they're contradicted by other evidence from various sources. If it does come down to who the jury believe is telling the truth......

It does. As it was always likely to.

I thought that was very telling. The only one who seems to be fairly consistent with their stories is the IP. Today's evidence is not good for Olding and Jackson as they come across as arrogant drunks who have contradictory stories. This will not sit well with the jury.

Unless the 7 lads in the jury like a drink and understand getting pissed can have its moments! And that's that, we dont know how these people are going to go with whats been said

I still believe that there is no real hard evidence to say they raped a girl and stand over it based on the snippets we have heard..

For me this has started out ok and went downhill and rape regret stupidity arrogance and alcohol have all played their part in a crazy night.. something went on but we'll never know, and to be fair they dont seem to know
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 02:23:49 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 23, 2018, 02:20:04 PM
From Frank Greaney in court:

Before going back to Paddy Jackson's house for an afters party, Stuart Olding tells police he drank:

8 tins of Carlsberg
4 pints of Guinness
2 Gin & Tonics
5 vodka lemonades
3 shots of Tequila and Sambuca


I'm not a drinker but I would have thought that this is a fair amount of alcohol to absorb and still be with your senses and on your feet.  Certainly giving a good impression of the off-season professional Ulster rugby player.

By any standards Owen, that's a fairly significant amount of drink.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 02:27:16 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 02:23:49 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 23, 2018, 02:20:04 PM
From Frank Greaney in court:

Before going back to Paddy Jackson's house for an afters party, Stuart Olding tells police he drank:

8 tins of Carlsberg
4 pints of Guinness
2 Gin & Tonics
5 vodka lemonades
3 shots of Tequila and Sambuca


I'm not a drinker but I would have thought that this is a fair amount of alcohol to absorb and still be with your senses and on your feet.  Certainly giving a good impression of the off-season professional Ulster rugby player.

By any standards Owen, that's a fairly significant amount of drink.

Thats fairly typical of rugby players.. they have a tradtion of downing a lot of drinks, drinking games and such... I would have a great friend who is an ex rugby player of a fairly high standard and the stories he tells of the tours and the amount of drinks is crazy, not a good man to get into a round with as you are fairly wasted afterwards
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on February 23, 2018, 02:41:49 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 01:16:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 01:13:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 01:00:12 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 12:56:36 PM
Paddy Jackson's statement sounds less than convincing.

And Olding freely admitted to having downed the worth of 16 or 17 pints of alcohol before getting to the after-party at Jackson's House..

How he managed to produce that amount of semen after that amount of drinks is commendable

Disgusting.

A big load can be, yes....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 23, 2018, 02:47:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 02:27:16 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 02:23:49 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 23, 2018, 02:20:04 PM
From Frank Greaney in court:

Before going back to Paddy Jackson's house for an afters party, Stuart Olding tells police he drank:

8 tins of Carlsberg
4 pints of Guinness
2 Gin & Tonics
5 vodka lemonades
3 shots of Tequila and Sambuca


I'm not a drinker but I would have thought that this is a fair amount of alcohol to absorb and still be with your senses and on your feet.  Certainly giving a good impression of the off-season professional Ulster rugby player.

By any standards Owen, that's a fairly significant amount of drink.

Thats fairly typical of rugby players.. they have a tradtion of downing a lot of drinks, drinking games and such... I would have a great friend who is an ex rugby player of a fairly high standard and the stories he tells of the tours and the amount of drinks is crazy, not a good man to get into a round with as you are fairly wasted afterwards
the English cricket team used to hve a drinking endurance competition on the flight to Australia. With a bit of practice Olding could be shortlisted
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 02:54:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 02:23:42 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 23, 2018, 02:15:56 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 02:12:57 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 23, 2018, 02:09:59 PM
Going on Frank Greaney's tweets it looks like the Jackson's and Olding's stories differ. And they're contradicted by other evidence from various sources. If it does come down to who the jury believe is telling the truth......

It does. As it was always likely to.

I thought that was very telling. The only one who seems to be fairly consistent with their stories is the IP. Today's evidence is not good for Olding and Jackson as they come across as arrogant drunks who have contradictory stories. This will not sit well with the jury.

Unless the 7 lads in the jury like a drink and understand getting pissed can have its moments! And that's that, we dont know how these people are going to go with whats been said

I still believe that there is no real hard evidence to say they raped a girl and stand over it based on the snippets we have heard..

For me this has started out ok and went downhill and rape regret stupidity arrogance and alcohol have all played their part in a crazy night.. something went on but we'll never know, and to be fair they dont seem to know

Do you take some sort of perverse joy out of explaining away problems for likely rapists? You seem be the first line of defence force in this thread.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 23, 2018, 03:00:04 PM
Frank Greaney‏ @FrankGreaney · 2 h 


In relation to the time frame of the trial, Judge Patricia Smyth tells jury they are "not on track". She said she is hopeful it will be finished by week ending Friday March 16th.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: WT4E on February 23, 2018, 03:05:50 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 23, 2018, 03:00:04 PM
Frank Greaney‏ @FrankGreaney · 2 h 


In relation to the time frame of the trial, Judge Patricia Smyth tells jury they are "not on track". She said she is hopeful it will be finished by week ending Friday March 16th.

Then she packed up and went home at lunchtime!  :o
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 23, 2018, 03:10:29 PM

Frank Greaney‏
@FrankGreaney 

Paddy Jackson told police he was drunk so he couldn't ejaculate. He said he went back downstairs and was in the living room again when he saw her leaving. He said there was "no intercourse" at all upstairs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ7pgElCPXE
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on February 23, 2018, 04:13:53 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 02:54:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 02:23:42 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 23, 2018, 02:15:56 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 02:12:57 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 23, 2018, 02:09:59 PM
Going on Frank Greaney's tweets it looks like the Jackson's and Olding's stories differ. And they're contradicted by other evidence from various sources. If it does come down to who the jury believe is telling the truth......

It does. As it was always likely to.

I thought that was very telling. The only one who seems to be fairly consistent with their stories is the IP. Today's evidence is not good for Olding and Jackson as they come across as arrogant drunks who have contradictory stories. This will not sit well with the jury.

Unless the 7 lads in the jury like a drink and understand getting pissed can have its moments! And that's that, we dont know how these people are going to go with whats been said

I still believe that there is no real hard evidence to say they raped a girl and stand over it based on the snippets we have heard..

For me this has started out ok and went downhill and rape regret stupidity arrogance and alcohol have all played their part in a crazy night.. something went on but we'll never know, and to be fair they dont seem to know

Do you take some sort of perverse joy out of explaining away problems for likely rapists? You seem be the first line of defence force in this thread.

As much as I hate to agree with you - his entire post history in this thread is somewhat disturbing
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: michaelg on February 23, 2018, 05:40:00 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 23, 2018, 02:47:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 02:27:16 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 02:23:49 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 23, 2018, 02:20:04 PM
From Frank Greaney in court:

Before going back to Paddy Jackson's house for an afters party, Stuart Olding tells police he drank:

8 tins of Carlsberg
4 pints of Guinness
2 Gin & Tonics
5 vodka lemonades
3 shots of Tequila and Sambuca


I'm not a drinker but I would have thought that this is a fair amount of alcohol to absorb and still be with your senses and on your feet.  Certainly giving a good impression of the off-season professional Ulster rugby player.

By any standards Owen, that's a fairly significant amount of drink.

Thats fairly typical of rugby players.. they have a tradtion of downing a lot of drinks, drinking games and such... I would have a great friend who is an ex rugby player of a fairly high standard and the stories he tells of the tours and the amount of drinks is crazy, not a good man to get into a round with as you are fairly wasted afterwards
the English cricket team used to hve a drinking endurance competition on the flight to Australia. With a bit of practice Olding could be shortlisted
It was the Aussie team going the other way - David Boon was the record holder with 52 cans on the flight in 1989
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on February 23, 2018, 05:47:57 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 02:23:49 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 23, 2018, 02:20:04 PM
From Frank Greaney in court:

Before going back to Paddy Jackson's house for an afters party, Stuart Olding tells police he drank:

8 tins of Carlsberg
4 pints of Guinness
2 Gin & Tonics
5 vodka lemonades
3 shots of Tequila and Sambuca


I'm not a drinker but I would have thought that this is a fair amount of alcohol to absorb and still be with your senses and on your feet.  Certainly giving a good impression of the off-season professional Ulster rugby player.

By any standards Owen, that's a fairly significant amount of drink.

Fair play to him for being honest. Could easily have said he had much less.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 23, 2018, 05:54:47 PM
Quote from: michaelg on February 23, 2018, 05:40:00 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 23, 2018, 02:47:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 02:27:16 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 02:23:49 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 23, 2018, 02:20:04 PM
From Frank Greaney in court:

Before going back to Paddy Jackson's house for an afters party, Stuart Olding tells police he drank:

8 tins of Carlsberg
4 pints of Guinness
2 Gin & Tonics
5 vodka lemonades
3 shots of Tequila and Sambuca


I'm not a drinker but I would have thought that this is a fair amount of alcohol to absorb and still be with your senses and on your feet.  Certainly giving a good impression of the off-season professional Ulster rugby player.

By any standards Owen, that's a fairly significant amount of drink.

Thats fairly typical of rugby players.. they have a tradtion of downing a lot of drinks, drinking games and such... I would have a great friend who is an ex rugby player of a fairly high standard and the stories he tells of the tours and the amount of drinks is crazy, not a good man to get into a round with as you are fairly wasted afterwards
the English cricket team used to hve a drinking endurance competition on the flight to Australia. With a bit of practice Olding could be shortlisted
It was the Aussie team going the other way - David Boon was the record holder with 52 cans on the flight in 1989
The English team never beat the record .
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 23, 2018, 06:00:44 PM

8 tins of Carlsberg
5 vodka lemonades
4 pints of Guinness
3 shots of Tequila and Sambuca
2 Gin & Tonics
1 possibly raped hen
And 4 lads with stories that don't stack up

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on February 23, 2018, 06:13:38 PM
What is different about Olding & Jackson's version of events ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 06:22:45 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on February 23, 2018, 04:13:53 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 02:54:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 02:23:42 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 23, 2018, 02:15:56 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 23, 2018, 02:12:57 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 23, 2018, 02:09:59 PM
Going on Frank Greaney's tweets it looks like the Jackson's and Olding's stories differ. And they're contradicted by other evidence from various sources. If it does come down to who the jury believe is telling the truth......

It does. As it was always likely to.

I thought that was very telling. The only one who seems to be fairly consistent with their stories is the IP. Today's evidence is not good for Olding and Jackson as they come across as arrogant drunks who have contradictory stories. This will not sit well with the jury.

Unless the 7 lads in the jury like a drink and understand getting pissed can have its moments! And that's that, we dont know how these people are going to go with whats been said

I still believe that there is no real hard evidence to say they raped a girl and stand over it based on the snippets we have heard..

For me this has started out ok and went downhill and rape regret stupidity arrogance and alcohol have all played their part in a crazy night.. something went on but we'll never know, and to be fair they dont seem to know

Do you take some sort of perverse joy out of explaining away problems for likely rapists? You seem be the first line of defence force in this thread.

As much as I hate to agree with you - his entire post history in this thread is somewhat disturbing

Like I give a shit what you or Syferus thinks
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: michaelg on February 23, 2018, 06:30:08 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 23, 2018, 05:54:47 PM
Quote from: michaelg on February 23, 2018, 05:40:00 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 23, 2018, 02:47:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 02:27:16 PM
Quote from: AQMP on February 23, 2018, 02:23:49 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 23, 2018, 02:20:04 PM
From Frank Greaney in court:

Before going back to Paddy Jackson's house for an afters party, Stuart Olding tells police he drank:

8 tins of Carlsberg
4 pints of Guinness
2 Gin & Tonics
5 vodka lemonades
3 shots of Tequila and Sambuca


I'm not a drinker but I would have thought that this is a fair amount of alcohol to absorb and still be with your senses and on your feet.  Certainly giving a good impression of the off-season professional Ulster rugby player.

By any standards Owen, that's a fairly significant amount of drink.

Thats fairly typical of rugby players.. they have a tradtion of downing a lot of drinks, drinking games and such... I would have a great friend who is an ex rugby player of a fairly high standard and the stories he tells of the tours and the amount of drinks is crazy, not a good man to get into a round with as you are fairly wasted afterwards
the English cricket team used to hve a drinking endurance competition on the flight to Australia. With a bit of practice Olding could be shortlisted
It was the Aussie team going the other way - David Boon was the record holder with 52 cans on the flight in 1989
The English team never beat the record .
Because they didn't try to. A quick google search states that rugby player Mike Tindall tried and failed to beat the record.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 23, 2018, 06:34:57 PM
I think the biggest issue for the jury in this case isn't going to be whether or not the victim consented (she's been consistent and unshakeable on the point). The issue is going to be proving the defendants didn't reasonably believe she consented.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 23, 2018, 06:34:57 PM
I think the biggest issue for the jury in this case isn't going to be whether or not the victim consented (she's been consistent and unshakeable on the point). The issue is going to be proving the defendants didn't reasonably believe she consented.

Were they in a a state where they could be reasonably confident that they would know? How are your cognitive functions after 17 pints? The fact that the defendants sounds like they were totally tanked does not help the believability of any of the 'specific details' they've thrown up over the course of this trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on February 23, 2018, 06:55:57 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 06:22:45 PMLike I give a shit what you or Syferus thinks

Gave enough of a shit to post a reply  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: armaghniac on February 23, 2018, 07:14:15 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 23, 2018, 06:34:57 PM
I think the biggest issue for the jury in this case isn't going to be whether or not the victim consented (she's been consistent and unshakeable on the point). The issue is going to be proving the defendants didn't reasonably believe she consented.

Were they in a a state where they could be reasonably confident that they would know? How are your cognitive functions after 17 pints? The fact that the defendants sounds like they were totally tanked does not help the believability of any of the 'specific details' they've thrown up over the course of this trial.

How tanked was the accuser?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: smelmoth on February 23, 2018, 07:20:25 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 23, 2018, 06:34:57 PM
I think the biggest issue for the jury in this case isn't going to be whether or not the victim consented (she's been consistent and unshakeable on the point). The issue is going to be proving the defendants didn't reasonably believe she consented.

Being consistent/unshakeable is not the same as being believable, compelling or correct.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 07:25:10 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 23, 2018, 07:14:15 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 23, 2018, 06:34:57 PM
I think the biggest issue for the jury in this case isn't going to be whether or not the victim consented (she's been consistent and unshakeable on the point). The issue is going to be proving the defendants didn't reasonably believe she consented.

Were they in a a state where they could be reasonably confident that they would know? How are your cognitive functions after 17 pints? The fact that the defendants sounds like they were totally tanked does not help the believability of any of the 'specific details' they've thrown up over the course of this trial.

How tanked was the accuser?

Clearly less than 17 pints in.. yikes.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 07:29:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 23, 2018, 06:34:57 PM
I think the biggest issue for the jury in this case isn't going to be whether or not the victim consented (she's been consistent and unshakeable on the point). The issue is going to be proving the defendants didn't reasonably believe she consented.

Were they in a a state where they could be reasonably confident that they would know? How are your cognitive functions after 17 pints? The fact that the defendants sounds like they were totally tanked does not help the believability of any of the 'specific details' they've thrown up over the course of this trial.

Well it's a good thing the girl was sober then
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 23, 2018, 07:30:38 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 23, 2018, 07:20:25 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 23, 2018, 06:34:57 PM
I think the biggest issue for the jury in this case isn't going to be whether or not the victim consented (she's been consistent and unshakeable on the point). The issue is going to be proving the defendants didn't reasonably believe she consented.

Being consistent/unshakeable is not the same as being believable, compelling or correct.

The point I was making is I don't think the trial is going to turn on the issue of did she consent. It might and if the jury believes she did then they will acquit. The more difficult thing I would imagine for them to deliberate over is have they been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants did not reasonably belief that in the circumstances she was not consenting. If that's not too many double negatives
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 07:32:59 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 07:29:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 23, 2018, 06:34:57 PM
I think the biggest issue for the jury in this case isn't going to be whether or not the victim consented (she's been consistent and unshakeable on the point). The issue is going to be proving the defendants didn't reasonably believe she consented.

Were they in a a state where they could be reasonably confident that they would know? How are your cognitive functions after 17 pints? The fact that the defendants sounds like they were totally tanked does not help the believability of any of the 'specific details' they've thrown up over the course of this trial.

Well it's a good thing the girl was sober then

The mask has well and truly melted away at this stage.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 07:32:59 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 07:29:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 23, 2018, 06:34:57 PM
I think the biggest issue for the jury in this case isn't going to be whether or not the victim consented (she's been consistent and unshakeable on the point). The issue is going to be proving the defendants didn't reasonably believe she consented.

Were they in a a state where they could be reasonably confident that they would know? How are your cognitive functions after 17 pints? The fact that the defendants sounds like they were totally tanked does not help the believability of any of the 'specific details' they've thrown up over the course of this trial.

Well it's a good thing the girl was sober then

The mask has well and truly melted away at this stage.

What mask ya balloon? I've not made a judgement on it, now carry on being a wally
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 23, 2018, 09:19:22 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 23, 2018, 07:14:15 PM
How tanked was the accuser?

From the Irish Times:

The woman, who became tearful on a number of occasions as she gave her evidence, said that on the night in question, she out with friends. They went to a gathering at a house, where she had 1½ large glasses of wine, before they got a taxi at about 10.30pm to Ollie's Nightclub, where she drank about three double vodkas before closing time.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on February 23, 2018, 09:40:24 PM
Quote from: Minder on February 23, 2018, 06:13:38 PM
What is different about Olding & Jackson's version of events ?

About 12 pints
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: snoopdog on February 23, 2018, 09:41:36 PM
These guys will walk.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 09:48:46 PM
Quote from: snoopdog on February 23, 2018, 09:41:36 PM
These guys will walk.

Careful now, Syferus will say you mask is slipping or melted away and Gab will say disturbing!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 10:12:03 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 09:40:59 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 08:46:02 AM
Mucker it's not just the fact that she took her top off. It's that she wants the jury to believe she did it under intimidation but can't remember who told her to take it off. I've said that 2 or 3 times already though and you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting what I said to suit your point.

Seanie, you're getting as bad as Syf for the condescending, self-righteous remarks and it seems to be a theme with one side of the argument in this thread.
Apologies Asal Mor, I wasn't trying to misrepresent you.  I just don't find the claim that she cant remember who told her to, as that important.  Again, it will be up to the jury to determine how much weight they put in that, but I cant imagine someone with all the relevant information and evidence placing much on it.
Sorry Mucker I was a bit stroppy on my way to an 11 hour shift at work. I do think if she'd been told in a threatening enough way to make her take off her top when she didn't want to, that she'd remember though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on February 23, 2018, 10:13:27 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 09:48:46 PM
Quote from: snoopdog on February 23, 2018, 09:41:36 PM
These guys will walk.

Careful now, Syferus will say you mask is slipping or melted away and Gab will say disturbing!

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/small-violin.gif)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 10:18:22 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 23, 2018, 11:21:35 AM
Compliance makes perfect sense in a threatening situation. There doesn't appear to me to have ever been the case made that the alleged victim was in fear of violence or felt threatened. Compliance in a non-threatening situation does not make sense, especially when there were numerous opportunities to ask for help, or extricate from situation.
The most sensible post I've seen on this thread.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 10:32:09 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 10:18:22 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 23, 2018, 11:21:35 AM
Compliance makes perfect sense in a threatening situation. There doesn't appear to me to have ever been the case made that the alleged victim was in fear of violence or felt threatened. Compliance in a non-threatening situation does not make sense, especially when there were numerous opportunities to ask for help, or extricate from situation.
The most sensible post I've seen on this thread.

Jesus. Do you only quote things that explain how the probable rapists were justified or am I missing a lot of posts?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2018, 10:37:10 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 23, 2018, 10:32:09 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 10:18:22 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on February 23, 2018, 11:21:35 AM
Compliance makes perfect sense in a threatening situation. There doesn't appear to me to have ever been the case made that the alleged victim was in fear of violence or felt threatened. Compliance in a non-threatening situation does not make sense, especially when there were numerous opportunities to ask for help, or extricate from situation.
The most sensible post I've seen on this thread.

Jesus. Do you only quote things that explain how the probably rapists were justified or am I missing a lot of posts?

Probably rapists? You not well?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:39:32 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 10:12:03 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 09:40:59 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 08:46:02 AM
Mucker it's not just the fact that she took her top off. It's that she wants the jury to believe she did it under intimidation but can't remember who told her to take it off. I've said that 2 or 3 times already though and you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting what I said to suit your point.

Seanie, you're getting as bad as Syf for the condescending, self-righteous remarks and it seems to be a theme with one side of the argument in this thread.
Apologies Asal Mor, I wasn't trying to misrepresent you.  I just don't find the claim that she cant remember who told her to, as that important.  Again, it will be up to the jury to determine how much weight they put in that, but I cant imagine someone with all the relevant information and evidence placing much on it.
Sorry Mucker I was a bit stroppy on my way to an 11 hour shift at work. I do think if she'd been told in a threatening enough way to make her take off her top when she didn't want to, that she'd remember though.
I would tend to agree.  I suppose I am challenging the idea that her taking off the top with out being told to do so in a threatening manner equals consent.

I think there is two main themes in this thread, one is the case itself and what people think the outcome would be, and the other is societal misconceptions, prejudices and views on the various aspects of rape.  Sometimes these are getting mixed together.
For example one poster thinks another is saying he his disturbing because he thinks the accused will get off.  I highly doubt thats why, and he doesn't realise that some of his comments have nothing do with whether they are innocent or guilty and can be construed as "victim blaming", regardless of innocence or guilt regarding the accused.
From what I have read, I would say there is a fair chance they will get off, that doesn't mean they are innocent, but the jury would need to believe beyond reasonable doubt to convict.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 24, 2018, 05:06:21 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:39:32 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 10:12:03 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 09:40:59 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 08:46:02 AM
Mucker it's not just the fact that she took her top off. It's that she wants the jury to believe she did it under intimidation but can't remember who told her to take it off. I've said that 2 or 3 times already though and you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting what I said to suit your point.

Seanie, you're getting as bad as Syf for the condescending, self-righteous remarks and it seems to be a theme with one side of the argument in this thread.
Apologies Asal Mor, I wasn't trying to misrepresent you.  I just don't find the claim that she cant remember who told her to, as that important.  Again, it will be up to the jury to determine how much weight they put in that, but I cant imagine someone with all the relevant information and evidence placing much on it.
Sorry Mucker I was a bit stroppy on my way to an 11 hour shift at work. I do think if she'd been told in a threatening enough way to make her take off her top when she didn't want to, that she'd remember though.
I would tend to agree.  I suppose I am challenging the idea that her taking off the top with out being told to do so in a threatening manner equals consent.
We live in strange times though. A girl follows a guy back to his house, goes to his room -twice, kissing the first time, sex the second time without any apparent aggression or physical force even by the girl's account and seemingly without a sliver of resistance on the girl's part and this is rape?

Far from a victim blaming culture I think we live in a victim worshipping culture where the girl is praised for being courageous and PJ's and Olding's careers are finished regardless of the likelihood they will be found not guilty(you never know though in the current culture)and even though they don't seem to have forced themselves on the girl in any way and she doesn't seem to have indicated to them in any way that she wasn't consenting to what they were doing.

I don't think the girl is lying exactly, I just think she's convinced herself she's a victim through shame and humiliation and being told she's a victim by those around her. I suspect she drunkenly went along with it until the 3rd guy walked in and felt disgusted by what had happened almost immediately. That's her own mistake though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 05:48:41 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 24, 2018, 05:06:21 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 10:39:32 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 10:12:03 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 23, 2018, 09:40:59 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 23, 2018, 08:46:02 AM
Mucker it's not just the fact that she took her top off. It's that she wants the jury to believe she did it under intimidation but can't remember who told her to take it off. I've said that 2 or 3 times already though and you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting what I said to suit your point.

Seanie, you're getting as bad as Syf for the condescending, self-righteous remarks and it seems to be a theme with one side of the argument in this thread.
Apologies Asal Mor, I wasn't trying to misrepresent you.  I just don't find the claim that she cant remember who told her to, as that important.  Again, it will be up to the jury to determine how much weight they put in that, but I cant imagine someone with all the relevant information and evidence placing much on it.
Sorry Mucker I was a bit stroppy on my way to an 11 hour shift at work. I do think if she'd been told in a threatening enough way to make her take off her top when she didn't want to, that she'd remember though.
I would tend to agree.  I suppose I am challenging the idea that her taking off the top with out being told to do so in a threatening manner equals consent.
We live in strange times though. A girl follows a guy back to his house, goes to his room -twice, kissing the first time, sex the second time without any apparent aggression or physical force even by the girl's account and seemingly without a sliver of resistance on the girl's part and this is rape?

Far from a victim blaming culture I think we live in a victim worshipping culture where the girl is praised for being courageous and PJ's and Olding's careers are finished regardless of the likelihood they will be found not guilty(you never know though in the current culture)and even though they don't seem to have forced themselves on the girl in any way and she doesn't seem to have indicated to them in any way that she wasn't consenting to what they were doing.

I don't think the girl is lying exactly, I just think she's convinced herself she's a victim through shame and humiliation and being told she's a victim by those around her. I suspect she drunkenly went along with it until the 3rd guy walked in and felt disgusted by what had happened almost immediately. That's her own mistake though.

You are a creepy, regressive excuse for a man.

If anyone really thinks they are not living in a society that is entirely weighted towards the patriarchy their sheer ignorance disqualifies them from having a meaningful opinion on rape victims, who are mainly female. "Rape worshipping culture" may be one of the most horrendous things yet posted on this forum (and that's saying something) because it's so painfully obvious it's being said with a straight face. You then go on to somehow pretend that the alleged rapists' inconsistent, scarcely believable and plaintively self-serving police interviews paint a truthful picture of events that night. Even a child could punch a thousand holes in your attempted hypothesis.

Writing a literal fan fiction of how the rape victim convinced herself of being raped because of "shame and humiliation" just to attempt to disguise your own bias against rape victims behind a flimsy veneer of reasoning is frankly abhorrent and has no place in this or any discussion.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 24, 2018, 07:16:45 AM
You're so hysterical you misquote me then proclaim it to be one of the most horrific things you've seen on the board. Pull yourself together man.

The point I was making was that if someone claims they are a victim of a rape they become unquestionable and are immediately lauded as courageous by the likes of you while the accused are already rapists in the eyes of progressive people like yourself and even if found not guilty are ruined.

I can see inconsistencies on both sides. You can only see them on one.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2018, 08:34:17 AM
Syferus is disturbing
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 24, 2018, 09:02:39 AM
Lots of people who try to pass themselves off as victims are victims of nothing more than their own decisions.

We saw it in the Harvey Weinstein case where there were some genuine victims of the man who were deserving of sympathy and retribution/compensation and some who were gold diggers happy to consent and take the money and fame at the time, also trying to pass themselves off as courageous victims of sexual abuse.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 24, 2018, 09:30:13 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 24, 2018, 07:16:45 AM
You're so hysterical you misquote me then proclaim it to be one of the most horrific things you've seen on the board. Pull yourself together man.

The point I was making was that if someone claims they are a victim of a rape they become unquestionable and are immediately lauded as courageous by the likes of you while the accused are already rapists in the eyes of progressive people like yourself and even if found not guilty are ruined.

I can see inconsistencies on both sides. You can only see them on one.
+1
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: CiKe on February 24, 2018, 09:44:21 AM
Syferus, sensitive subject but genuine question here.

Is there someone close to you who has been raped or sexually abused? I don't know what the hell happened that night, and my only sources for what went on are this board and Frank Greaney, but as I said earlier am leaning towards number three being the turning point. If that was the case it would make the guys innocent and not only, "not guilty".

On the limited info (second hand), it seems very difficult to me to reach a decision beyond reasonable doubt. Hence curiosity as to how you can  come down so clearly on one side.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: armaghniac on February 24, 2018, 11:52:18 AM
This whole thing says more about Irish drink culture than anything else. There was a quote earlier on that you can't be expected to remember what happened on a night out and therein lies a lot of the problem.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 24, 2018, 12:54:22 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 24, 2018, 11:52:18 AM
This whole thing says more about Irish drink culture than anything else. There was a quote earlier on that you can't be expected to remember what happened on a night out and therein lies a lot of the problem.

+1
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible. You and a few here seem to think a non-conviction wipes away the proof something horrible happened for some odd reason. And it's horrible you'd try to use a rape trial to point score on a Tyrone minor sledging a Donegal minor too.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 04:11:03 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

A jury not convicting them doesn't mean it wasn't rape. If the woman didn't consent, it was rape. It's very hard to my mind to get around the fact the victim says she did not give her consent, she is the star witness in all this, it's her own wishes that make it rape or not and she very consistently has said it was rape. It's far more implausible that she is lying and let this go to a massive public spectacle of a court case than it is that, at best, two jocks were off their tits on drink and didn't give any respect to or thought the woman's wishes.

If you don't know 'lads' like Jackson and Odling in your own life maybe you don't get how much of their behaviour rings true and is anything but shocking or unbelievable. But I do and I can see how this type of rape could very easily happen up and down the country, and most likely does given how much of an epidemic rape is - RAINN's statistics show 1 in 6 US women have been the victims of rape or attempted rape in their lives. And, by the way, it's about a 6:1 ratio between completed to attempted rapes so that number isn't being bolstered by a lot of lucky escapes. This is a huge problem too many are willing to push under the rug.

Especially in rape cases (notoriously hard to get to trial and hard to try, partly due to sexist attitudes that infect both male and female jurors) the idea that non-conviction is equal to simple innocence is a troubling viewpoint too many here seem to share.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2018, 04:24:41 PM
Well that god there is s judicial system and not Syferus system!

It's very simple, if the jury believe they are guilty in the evidence presented then guilty it is, there won't be one person complaining about it either, and everyone hopes the book is thrown at them..

But in the same token if they are not guilty then that's that, impossible for those lads to get their lives back on track, but they will at least be free..

The IP, well she's had a torrid time, not just whatever happened on the night but what's she's put herself through and family plus living with the consequences after this trial regardless of the result..

Hopefully the plus side of this will be the awareness that young ones hopefully take from this!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 24, 2018, 04:56:08 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 04:11:03 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

A jury not convicting them doesn't mean it wasn't rape. If the woman didn't consent, it was rape. It's very hard to my mind to get around the fact the victim says she did not give her consent, she is the star witness in all this, it's her own wishes that make it rape or not and she very consistently has said it was rape. It's far more implausible that she is lying and let this go to a massive public spectacle of a court case than it is that, at best, two jocks were off their tits on drink and didn't give any respect to or thought the woman's wishes.

If you don't know 'lads' like Jackson and Odling in your own life maybe you don't get how much of their behaviour rings true and is anything but shocking or unbelievable. But I do and I can see how this type of rape could very easily happen up and down the country, and most likely does given how much of an epidmedic rape is - RAINN's statistics show 1 in 6 US women have been the victims of rape or attempted rape in their lives. And, by the way, it's a about a 6:1 ratio between completed and attempted rapes so that number isn't being bolstered by a lot of lucky escapes. This is a huge problem too many are willing to push under the rug.

Especially in rape cases (notoriously hard to get to trial and hard to try, partly due to sexist attitudes that infect both male and female jurors) the idea that non-conviction is equal to simple innocence is a troubling viewpoint too many here seem to share.

Using your logic of making assumptions, what would you assume was her reason for going to the lads house on her own at that time of morning?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 04:57:27 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 24, 2018, 04:56:08 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 04:11:03 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

A jury not convicting them doesn't mean it wasn't rape. If the woman didn't consent, it was rape. It's very hard to my mind to get around the fact the victim says she did not give her consent, she is the star witness in all this, it's her own wishes that make it rape or not and she very consistently has said it was rape. It's far more implausible that she is lying and let this go to a massive public spectacle of a court case than it is that, at best, two jocks were off their tits on drink and didn't give any respect to or thought the woman's wishes.

If you don't know 'lads' like Jackson and Odling in your own life maybe you don't get how much of their behaviour rings true and is anything but shocking or unbelievable. But I do and I can see how this type of rape could very easily happen up and down the country, and most likely does given how much of an epidmedic rape is - RAINN's statistics show 1 in 6 US women have been the victims of rape or attempted rape in their lives. And, by the way, it's a about a 6:1 ratio between completed and attempted rapes so that number isn't being bolstered by a lot of lucky escapes. This is a huge problem too many are willing to push under the rug.

Especially in rape cases (notoriously hard to get to trial and hard to try, partly due to sexist attitudes that infect both male and female jurors) the idea that non-conviction is equal to simple innocence is a troubling viewpoint too many here seem to share.

Using your logic of making assumptions, what would you assume was her reason for going to the lads house on her own at that time of morning?

She was interested in Jackson. She just decided not to have sex with him. You seem to think that her interest in him means he's absolved for not respecting her wishes. He isn't.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 05:05:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 04:11:03 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

A jury not convicting them doesn't mean it wasn't rape. If the woman didn't consent, it was rape. It's very hard to my mind to get around the fact the victim says she did not give her consent, she is the star witness in all this, it's her own wishes that make it rape or not and she very consistently has said it was rape. It's far more implausible that she is lying and let this go to a massive public spectacle of a court case than it is that, at best, two jocks were off their tits on drink and didn't give any respect to or thought the woman's wishes.

If you don't know 'lads' like Jackson and Odling in your own life maybe you don't get how much of their behaviour rings true and is anything but shocking or unbelievable. But I do and I can see how this type of rape could very easily happen up and down the country, and most likely does given how much of an epidmedic rape is - RAINN's statistics show 1 in 6 US women have been the victims of rape or attempted rape in their lives. And, by the way, it's a about a 6:1 ratio between completed and attempted rapes so that number isn't being bolstered by a lot of lucky escapes. This is a huge problem too many are willing to push under the rug.

Especially in rape cases (notoriously hard to get to trial and hard to try, partly due to sexist attitudes that infect both male and female jurors) the idea that non-conviction is equal to simple innocence is a troubling viewpoint too many here seem to share.

I've seen very little evidence that she didn't consent. Regret after the fact doesn't make it rape, and is extremely damaging to the accused and to rape victims
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 24, 2018, 05:12:51 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 05:05:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 04:11:03 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

A jury not convicting them doesn't mean it wasn't rape. If the woman didn't consent, it was rape. It's very hard to my mind to get around the fact the victim says she did not give her consent, she is the star witness in all this, it's her own wishes that make it rape or not and she very consistently has said it was rape. It's far more implausible that she is lying and let this go to a massive public spectacle of a court case than it is that, at best, two jocks were off their tits on drink and didn't give any respect to or thought the woman's wishes.

If you don't know 'lads' like Jackson and Odling in your own life maybe you don't get how much of their behaviour rings true and is anything but shocking or unbelievable. But I do and I can see how this type of rape could very easily happen up and down the country, and most likely does given how much of an epidmedic rape is - RAINN's statistics show 1 in 6 US women have been the victims of rape or attempted rape in their lives. And, by the way, it's a about a 6:1 ratio between completed and attempted rapes so that number isn't being bolstered by a lot of lucky escapes. This is a huge problem too many are willing to push under the rug.

Especially in rape cases (notoriously hard to get to trial and hard to try, partly due to sexist attitudes that infect both male and female jurors) the idea that non-conviction is equal to simple innocence is a troubling viewpoint too many here seem to share.

I've seen very little evidence that she didn't consent. Regret after the fact doesn't make it rape, and is extremely damaging to the accused and to rape victims

Surely non-conviction should equate innocence though, given you are innocent until proven guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 05:15:28 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 05:05:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 04:11:03 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

A jury not convicting them doesn't mean it wasn't rape. If the woman didn't consent, it was rape. It's very hard to my mind to get around the fact the victim says she did not give her consent, she is the star witness in all this, it's her own wishes that make it rape or not and she very consistently has said it was rape. It's far more implausible that she is lying and let this go to a massive public spectacle of a court case than it is that, at best, two jocks were off their tits on drink and didn't give any respect to or thought the woman's wishes.

If you don't know 'lads' like Jackson and Odling in your own life maybe you don't get how much of their behaviour rings true and is anything but shocking or unbelievable. But I do and I can see how this type of rape could very easily happen up and down the country, and most likely does given how much of an epidmedic rape is - RAINN's statistics show 1 in 6 US women have been the victims of rape or attempted rape in their lives. And, by the way, it's a about a 6:1 ratio between completed and attempted rapes so that number isn't being bolstered by a lot of lucky escapes. This is a huge problem too many are willing to push under the rug.

Especially in rape cases (notoriously hard to get to trial and hard to try, partly due to sexist attitudes that infect both male and female jurors) the idea that non-conviction is equal to simple innocence is a troubling viewpoint too many here seem to share.

I've seen very little evidence that she didn't consent. Regret after the fact doesn't make it rape, and is extremely damaging to the accused and to rape victims

It's much more damaging to rape victims that someone would choose to believe they are lying about consent and let charges and a court case be filed. Most rape victims don't even report it to the police Tubber, and the ones that reach trial are a rare breed in and of themselves. Your lack of empathy for the victim while your fountain of reasons why the accused were justified is a concern to say the least.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 05:32:59 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 05:15:28 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 05:05:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 04:11:03 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

A jury not convicting them doesn't mean it wasn't rape. If the woman didn't consent, it was rape. It's very hard to my mind to get around the fact the victim says she did not give her consent, she is the star witness in all this, it's her own wishes that make it rape or not and she very consistently has said it was rape. It's far more implausible that she is lying and let this go to a massive public spectacle of a court case than it is that, at best, two jocks were off their tits on drink and didn't give any respect to or thought the woman's wishes.

If you don't know 'lads' like Jackson and Odling in your own life maybe you don't get how much of their behaviour rings true and is anything but shocking or unbelievable. But I do and I can see how this type of rape could very easily happen up and down the country, and most likely does given how much of an epidmedic rape is - RAINN's statistics show 1 in 6 US women have been the victims of rape or attempted rape in their lives. And, by the way, it's a about a 6:1 ratio between completed and attempted rapes so that number isn't being bolstered by a lot of lucky escapes. This is a huge problem too many are willing to push under the rug.

Especially in rape cases (notoriously hard to get to trial and hard to try, partly due to sexist attitudes that infect both male and female jurors) the idea that non-conviction is equal to simple innocence is a troubling viewpoint too many here seem to share.

I've seen very little evidence that she didn't consent. Regret after the fact doesn't make it rape, and is extremely damaging to the accused and to rape victims

It's much more damaging to rape victims that someone would choose to believe they are lying about consent and let charges and a court case be filed. Most rape victims don't even report it to the police Tubber, and the ones that reach trial are a rare breed in and of themselves. Your lack of empathy for the victim while your fountain of reasons why the accused were justified is a concern to say the least.

"Fountain of reasons "  - what are you raving about!?
I said I've seen very little evidence that she didn't consent. I made no comment on the defendants.  I'm taking it on the reports of the testimonies provided.  You seem to believe that the defendants are guilty on the basis that it's difficult for a girl to take a case like this (whixh it undoubtedly is), but that in itself is not proof Syf.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 24, 2018, 05:37:51 PM
Well put Tubber.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: fearbrags on February 24, 2018, 06:09:59 PM
Syferus  , I  know you are from Roscommon  as am I . What do you work at ? Are you in the legal field ? How can you be so sure ? You seem to court a lot of controversy on both on here and the Ros site   I would not want you on my jury ;)   I do agree that the Victim sounds very sincere but it  is very difficult to know what exactly  happened , I believe that if Stuart Olding and Blane McIlroy  had not entered the room that she would have regretted what happened but would never have brought this case. Personally at the start of the case I did think that they would be found guilty, Of late I would more lean towards  not guilty with not enough clear evidence of what exactly happened  .
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 06:17:27 PM
Quote from: fearbrags on February 24, 2018, 06:09:59 PM
Syferus  , I  know you are from Roscommon  as am I . What do you work at ? Are you in the legal field ? How can you be so sure ? You seem to court a lot of controversy on both on here and the Ros site   I would not want you on my jury ;)   I do agree that the Victim sounds very sincere but it  is very difficult to know what exactly  happened , I believe that if Stuart Olding and Blane McIlroy  had not entered the room that she would have regretted what happened but would never have brought this case. Personally at the start of the case I did think that they would be found guilty, Of late I would more lean towards  not guilty with not enough clear evidence of what exactly happened  .

There is nothing controversial believing a rape victim. This thread is a sad anachronism of ten to twenty years ago where regressive attitudes towards rape were still acceptable. It's also true that because those trying to shout down the rape victim are the loudest, it does not mean mean they are in the majority. I'm not bothered one bit by how uncomfortable some home truths are making some here because I know my conscience is very clear.

Open your ears outside your echo chamber and you might see that that the world has changed, particularly with how acceptable sexual assault and casual rape are.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 24, 2018, 06:37:53 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 06:17:27 PM
Quote from: fearbrags on February 24, 2018, 06:09:59 PM
Syferus  , I  know you are from Roscommon  as am I . What do you work at ? Are you in the legal field ? How can you be so sure ? You seem to court a lot of controversy on both on here and the Ros site   I would not want you on my jury ;)   I do agree that the Victim sounds very sincere but it  is very difficult to know what exactly  happened , I believe that if Stuart Olding and Blane McIlroy  had not entered the room that she would have regretted what happened but would never have brought this case. Personally at the start of the case I did think that they would be found guilty, Of late I would more lean towards  not guilty with not enough clear evidence of what exactly happened  .

There is nothing controversial believing a rape victim. This thread is a sad anachronism of ten to twenty years ago where regressive attitudes towards rape were still acceptable. It's also true that because those trying to shout down the rape victim are the loudest, it does not mean mean they are in the majority. I'm not bothered one bit by how uncomfortable some home truths are making some here because I know my conscience is very clear.

Open your ears outside your echo chamber and you might see that that the world has changed, particularly with how acceptable sexual assault and casual rape are.

There are lots of cases where women consented then changed their mind afterwards.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 06:47:15 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 06:17:27 PM
Quote from: fearbrags on February 24, 2018, 06:09:59 PM
Syferus  , I  know you are from Roscommon  as am I . What do you work at ? Are you in the legal field ? How can you be so sure ? You seem to court a lot of controversy on both on here and the Ros site   I would not want you on my jury ;)   I do agree that the Victim sounds very sincere but it  is very difficult to know what exactly  happened , I believe that if Stuart Olding and Blane McIlroy  had not entered the room that she would have regretted what happened but would never have brought this case. Personally at the start of the case I did think that they would be found guilty, Of late I would more lean towards  not guilty with not enough clear evidence of what exactly happened  .

There is nothing controversial believing a rape victim. This thread is a sad anachronism of ten to twenty years ago where regressive attitudes towards rape were still acceptable. It's also true that because those trying to shout down the rape victim are the loudest, it does not mean mean they are in the majority. I'm not bothered one bit by how uncomfortable some home truths are making some here because I know my conscience is very clear.

Open your ears outside your echo chamber and you might see that that the world has changed, particularly with how acceptable sexual assault and casual rape are.

Hot air - you don't deal with evidence of the case at ant point. You rage about bias and prejudice etc, but are blind to your own.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: bennydorano on February 24, 2018, 06:58:14 PM
Too many people on this thread emotionally invested in this case and it's just embarrassing, it would appear point scoring / being 'right' is more important than the outcome of the case and wellbeing of those concerned. It's a  Lose / lose situation for all involved, the verdict while obviously hugely important will matter little to those who've dug their trenches here.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 24, 2018, 07:52:29 PM
It's the internet Benny, point scoring and being right is always most important. I'm also curious to see if Syferus' head bursts open with indignation if the Belfast four are cleared. If they are found guilty I'd anticipate the most gloating, pontificating, self-congratulatory epic of a post the internet has ever seen. Either way it will be hilarious, though obviously the welfare of those involved is foremost in my mind.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2018, 07:56:55 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 24, 2018, 07:52:29 PM
It's the internet Benny, point scoring and being right is always most important. I'm also curious to see if Syferus' head bursts open with indignation if the Belfast four are cleared. If they are found guilty I'd anticipate the most gloating, pontificating, self-congratulatory epic of a post the internet has ever seen. Either way it will be hilarious, though obviously the welfare of those involved is foremost in my mind.

Nope, let Syferus and his one mate tell you what you're actually thinking with regards to this case!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: fearbrags on February 24, 2018, 08:04:11 PM
""Open your ears outside your echo chamber and you might see that that the world has changed, particularly with how acceptable sexual assault and casual rape are."" 
My ears are open,and I would guess I am older then you and have lived through a lot of change. But while agreeing with you that  sexual assault and rape are totally unacceptable, That doesn't mean that everyone accused of rape is guilty ! It is not as if Paddy Jackson attacked her and dragged her into the bushes and raped her , It would seem she willingly went to his house and then his bed room (not once but twice)  It didnt seem that she felt threatened up to going to his bedroom the 2nd time.  What exactly happened then is very unclear (or from what I have read it seem that way to me).We all know ""no"" is ""no"".  It would be great if everyone didnt have sex till they got married etc (maybe you are one of those)' But some times a guy when he gets a "no" first , he just does more "bs" and the ""no"" becomes a yes (I am not saying I am approving of this) . In my opinion it comes down to who you believe? ( it seems they all were intoxicated and  it is hard to say)
""Generally, prosecutors bear the burden of proof and are required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty.""  A lot has change but this has not ! 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 24, 2018, 08:06:40 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape. Should it?  That's an argument for a different day.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 24, 2018, 08:45:21 PM
A female friend of mine in work thinks that the age gap is a concern. The complainant is 18 and Jackson is 26?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2018, 09:03:16 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 24, 2018, 08:45:21 PM
A female friend of mine in work thinks that the age gap is a concern. The complainant is 18 and Jackson is 26?
[/quote

Was it not two years ago and she was 19? Jackson 24? Could be wrong
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 24, 2018, 09:03:33 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 24, 2018, 08:45:21 PM
A female friend of mine in work thinks that the age gap is a concern. The complainant is 18 and Jackson is 26?
Do the women in work actually speak to you?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 24, 2018, 09:04:54 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 24, 2018, 08:45:21 PM
A female friend of mine in work thinks that the age gap is a concern. The complainant is 18 and Jackson is 26?

two consenting adults - whats the problem?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2018, 09:07:57 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 09:04:54 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 24, 2018, 08:45:21 PM
A female friend of mine in work thinks that the age gap is a concern. The complainant is 18 and Jackson is 26?

two consenting adults - whats the problem?

Well let the jury decide they were consenting!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 24, 2018, 09:14:24 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2018, 09:07:57 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 09:04:54 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 24, 2018, 08:45:21 PM
A female friend of mine in work thinks that the age gap is a concern. The complainant is 18 and Jackson is 26?

two consenting adults - whats the problem?

Well let the jury decide they were consenting!

I mean in general, what's the problem with a 26 year old getting with an 18 year old? If not consensual of course its wrong. That seems to be what you're friend is saying or maybe I'm misinterpreting that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on February 24, 2018, 09:19:57 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 24, 2018, 08:45:21 PM
A female friend of mine in work thinks that the age gap is a concern. The complainant is 18 and Jackson is 26?

So by that reckoning if instead PJ was 18 and she 26 he'd be innocent? ???
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 24, 2018, 09:23:26 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 24, 2018, 09:03:33 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 24, 2018, 08:45:21 PM
A female friend of mine in work thinks that the age gap is a concern. The complainant is 18 and Jackson is 26?
Do the women in work actually speak to you?

Oh yes, but usually it is to say something like "get away from me creep"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 10:08:05 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 24, 2018, 09:23:26 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 24, 2018, 09:03:33 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 24, 2018, 08:45:21 PM
A female friend of mine in work thinks that the age gap is a concern. The complainant is 18 and Jackson is 26?
Do the women in work actually speak to you?

Oh yes, but usually it is to say something like "get away from me creep"

You say that as a joke and yet your posts in this thread..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 24, 2018, 11:03:07 PM
What I'm most uneasy about as regards this thread and others on the same subject I've read elsewhere is that it appears a lot of men have their own set of guidelines for how they think a woman who has been raped should behave in order for her to be believed.

These guidelines are based on nothing at all other than the holder's own ideas and prejudices.

Now I'm not using this as an argument to try and prove that the complainant in this case was raped, though I have my own views on that having followed the trial closely from the start. My problem is how some posters here and elsewhere have tried to portray reports of the complainant's reactions as proof that she could not have been raped, rather than trying to educate themselves about how women tend to react during rape.

The complainant not screaming is taken as proof she could not have been raped. So are reports that she asked Jackson to "at least use a condom". The possibility of trauma and fragmented memory are ruled out. It seems to me that "she didn't scream or cry for help" is the new "she was asking for it".   

As George Hook's abhorrent comments and the widespread support they attracted shows, a lot of men still have pretty neanderthal views about the subject.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 24, 2018, 11:20:40 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 10:08:05 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 24, 2018, 09:23:26 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 24, 2018, 09:03:33 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 24, 2018, 08:45:21 PM
A female friend of mine in work thinks that the age gap is a concern. The complainant is 18 and Jackson is 26?
Do the women in work actually speak to you?

Oh yes, but usually it is to say something like "get away from me creep"

You say that as a joke and yet your posts in this thread..

Really? Can you point out said posts chief?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 24, 2018, 11:37:26 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 24, 2018, 11:03:07 PM
What I'm most uneasy about as regards this thread and others on the same subject I've read elsewhere is that it appears a lot of men have their own set of guidelines for how they think a woman who has been raped should behave in order for her to be believed.

These guidelines are based on nothing at all other than the holder's own ideas and prejudices.

Now I'm not using this as an argument to try and prove that the complainant in this case was raped, though I have my own views on that having followed the trial closely from the start. My problem is how some posters here and elsewhere have tried to portray reports of the complainant's reactions as proof that she could not have been raped, rather than trying to educate themselves about how women tend to react during rape.

The complainant not screaming is taken as proof she could not have been raped. So are reports that she asked Jackson to "at least use a condom". The possibility of trauma and fragmented memory are ruled out. It seems to me that "she didn't scream or cry for help" is the new "she was asking for it".   

As George Hook's abhorrent comments and the widespread support they attracted shows, a lot of men still have pretty neanderthal views about the subject.

Generalised sweeping statements, but carry on!

People will have views based on what they have heard, end of. If the evidence all pointed towards the guys being totally innocent then people will view it on that, if all the evidence so far heard was leaning towards them being guilty then everyone would be saying they are going down for rape, as it stands all the evidence hasn't been heard and people are taking the snippets and judging it themselves on a discussion board!

Wow strange that! Different views, weird!

Some dicks even get that much carried away that I'd imagine they'd top themselves if it goes against their narrative!  The reality is completely different as they wouldn't give a toss as they have other things in their life which are far more important.

Hundreds if not thousands of rape cases go on but I've only heard of two on this board!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 11:50:55 PM
People do not come to their view simply based on the evidence of the individual case alone like some sort of justice robot. That suggestion is totally absurd in any context nevermind one as charged as this. MR2, the only man without bias and prejudices, or is that the only one who can't see his?

Spare me.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 24, 2018, 11:52:08 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 24, 2018, 08:06:40 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.
Sex without consent is rape,  it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

QuoteShould it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

QuoteThat's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."

May not be recognised as  lawful,  meaning it may be recognised as rape. Yes, for various reasons  it may not be recognised  as rape, it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was not given in order for it to be recognised as rape.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 25, 2018, 12:03:26 AM
Quote from: Main Street on February 24, 2018, 11:52:08 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 24, 2018, 08:06:40 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.
Sex without consent is rape, Syf is spot on if he wrote that.

QuoteShould it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

QuoteThat's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."


Is that the legal definition of consent MS?? If so then a lot of people are in trouble!! Surely something defines implied consent and personally I thought the onus is on the woman to say no or to communicate physically that she doesn't want to.

Who asks their wife every time they want to have sex?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 25, 2018, 12:03:56 AM
I could be wrong here, and I am open to correction, but I think what David is saying, is that one of the criteria to consider in a rape case, is did the defendants reasonably believe that consent was given.  Ie the IP could believe that they were raped but the perp believe that were was consent.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 12:05:06 AM
Quote from: Main Street on February 24, 2018, 11:52:08 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 24, 2018, 08:06:40 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.
Sex without consent is rape,  it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

QuoteShould it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

QuoteThat's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."

May not be recognised as  lawful,  meaning it may be recognised as rape. Yes, for various reasons  it may not be recognised  as rape, it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was not given in order for it to be recognised as rape.

I'd say he knows more on this than you, I'll go with his judgement on this before yours
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 25, 2018, 12:07:11 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 12:05:06 AM
Quote from: Main Street on February 24, 2018, 11:52:08 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 24, 2018, 08:06:40 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.
Sex without consent is rape,  it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

QuoteShould it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

QuoteThat's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."

May not be recognised as  lawful,  meaning it may be recognised as rape. Yes, for various reasons  it may not be recognised  as rape, it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was not given in order for it to be recognised as rape.

I'd say he knows more on this than you, I'll go with his judgement on this before yours

Lol.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 12:08:32 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 25, 2018, 12:07:11 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 12:05:06 AM
Quote from: Main Street on February 24, 2018, 11:52:08 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 24, 2018, 08:06:40 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.
Sex without consent is rape,  it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

QuoteShould it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

QuoteThat's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."

May not be recognised as  lawful,  meaning it may be recognised as rape. Yes, for various reasons  it may not be recognised  as rape, it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was not given in order for it to be recognised as rape.

I'd say he knows more on this than you, I'll go with his judgement on this before yours

Lol.

Your legal background is?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on February 25, 2018, 12:10:35 AM
For what it's worth I think Sfy has brought alot of good points to the table.  But because he is a sanctimonious..... it is affecting the discussion.  Which says alot about both parties!

Lesson here Syferus, "A man convinced against his will, will think no different still!"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 25, 2018, 12:10:56 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 12:08:32 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 25, 2018, 12:07:11 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 12:05:06 AM
Quote from: Main Street on February 24, 2018, 11:52:08 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 24, 2018, 08:06:40 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.
Sex without consent is rape,  it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

QuoteShould it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

QuoteThat's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."

May not be recognised as  lawful,  meaning it may be recognised as rape. Yes, for various reasons  it may not be recognised  as rape, it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was not given in order for it to be recognised as rape.

I'd say he knows more on this than you, I'll go with his judgement on this before yours

Lol.

Your legal background is?

He quoted the legal definition of rape. So is he lying just like you assume the rape victim is?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 25, 2018, 12:13:50 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on February 25, 2018, 12:10:35 AM
For what it's worth I think Sfy has brought alot of good points to the table.  But because he is a sanctimonious..... it is affecting the discussion.  Which says alot about both parties!

Lesson here Syferus, "A man convinced against his will, will think no differnt still!"

I have never expected to change what are clearly entrenched and in a lot of ways regressive attitudes towards women on this forum but I sure as hell won't let them pass without highlighting the worst offenders and shining a light on their piss-poor attempts to disguise their prejudices when called on it. And certainly not on a topic as serious as a gang rape.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 12:15:30 AM
Your legal background is? That's twice I've asked you
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 25, 2018, 12:18:03 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 25, 2018, 12:10:56 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 12:08:32 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 25, 2018, 12:07:11 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 12:05:06 AM
Quote from: Main Street on February 24, 2018, 11:52:08 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 24, 2018, 08:06:40 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.
Sex without consent is rape,  it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

QuoteShould it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

QuoteThat's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."

May not be recognised as  lawful,  meaning it may be recognised as rape. Yes, for various reasons  it may not be recognised  as rape, it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was not given in order for it to be recognised as rape.

I'd say he knows more on this than you, I'll go with his judgement on this before yours

Lol.

Your legal background is?

He quoted the legal definition of rape. So is he lying just like you assume the rape victim is?

Having checked out MS's quote for consent I've seen it on one website and I don't think it in any way is a legal definition of consent! For one it is way too concise!

PS. I'm happy enough to be corrected on that if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 12:24:32 AM
When Syferus gets up his legal experience I'll take that as binding!

Just waiting on it! Should be soon
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 25, 2018, 12:28:24 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 12:24:32 AM
When Syferus gets up his legal experience I'll take that as binding!

Just waiting on it! Should be soon

It's a bit sad that you've been reduced from dressing up obvious predjuices in the clothes of reasoning to distraction tactics. Maybe time to take a break?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 08:00:57 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 25, 2018, 12:28:24 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 12:24:32 AM
When Syferus gets up his legal experience I'll take that as binding!

Just waiting on it! Should be soon

It's a bit sad that you've been reduced from dressing up obvious predjuices in the clothes of reasoning to distraction tactics. Maybe time to take a break?

So you're not going to give me an answer?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 25, 2018, 08:22:19 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 25, 2018, 12:07:11 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 12:05:06 AM
Quote from: Main Street on February 24, 2018, 11:52:08 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 24, 2018, 08:06:40 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on February 24, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 24, 2018, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 24, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 24, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.
Sex without consent is rape,  it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

QuoteShould it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

QuoteThat's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."

May not be recognised as  lawful,  meaning it may be recognised as rape. Yes, for various reasons  it may not be recognised  as rape, it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was not given in order for it to be recognised as rape.

I'd say he knows more on this than you, I'll go with his judgement on this before yours

Lol.

Oh okay, we're allowed to laugh out loud on this thread now?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 08:40:08 AM
Only the chosen one (whose absolutely no legal credentials) can decide what is ok or not
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: themac_23 on February 25, 2018, 09:00:56 AM
Quick question, would the PPS have taken this case to court if it wasn't for the high profiles of the accused? Just asking because it seems that way.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: smelmoth on February 25, 2018, 09:27:49 AM
Quote from: themac_23 on February 25, 2018, 09:00:56 AM
Quick question, would the PPS have taken this case to court if it wasn't for the high profiles of the accused? Just asking because it seems that way.

PPs originally decided not to run the case.

Family instructed Counsel to challenge this and he convinced PPS to throw it before a jury and see what would happen as opposed to presume what would happen. He is on a fair wedge for this
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on February 25, 2018, 09:58:44 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 25, 2018, 09:27:49 AM
Quote from: themac_23 on February 25, 2018, 09:00:56 AM
Quick question, would the PPS have taken this case to court if it wasn't for the high profiles of the accused? Just asking because it seems that way.

PPs originally decided not to run the case.

Family instructed Counsel to challenge this and he convinced PPS to throw it before a jury and see what would happen as opposed to presume what would happen. He is on a fair wedge for this

If convictions are not achieved by PPS after this trial costing many hundreds of thousands then there will be serious fallout at the PPS on the decision to prosecute.  Convictions or not the lives of 5 young people will be in shreds and their families will have to live with the consequences long after the MSM and social media interest has moved on to the next thing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: smelmoth on February 25, 2018, 10:10:26 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 25, 2018, 09:58:44 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 25, 2018, 09:27:49 AM
Quote from: themac_23 on February 25, 2018, 09:00:56 AM
Quick question, would the PPS have taken this case to court if it wasn't for the high profiles of the accused? Just asking because it seems that way.

PPs originally decided not to run the case.

Family instructed Counsel to challenge this and he convinced PPS to throw it before a jury and see what would happen as opposed to presume what would happen. He is on a fair wedge for this

If convictions are not achieved by PPS after this trial costing many hundreds of thousands then there will be serious fallout at the PPS on the decision to prosecute.  Convictions or not the lives of 5 young people will be in shreds and their families will have to live with the consequences long after the MSM and social media interest has moved on to the next thing.

Can't see there being any convictions for tape/sexual assault.

Probably will be for perverting the course of justice.

A fall out would require public sympathy. The only one likely to have public sympathy by the time this is over will be the one individual found guilty. The whole thing is messed up
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 25, 2018, 10:44:42 AM
Rape is no longer a common law offence in Northern Ireland. It is now contained within the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 which defines Rape as:

Rape
5.—(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

The point I was making was that penetration and a lack of consent does not mean it is automatically Rape. Should that be the case? Should the onus be on the perp to establish in advance that consent had been established? Those are arguments not relevant to this trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 25, 2018, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 25, 2018, 09:58:44 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 25, 2018, 09:27:49 AM
Quote from: themac_23 on February 25, 2018, 09:00:56 AM
Quick question, would the PPS have taken this case to court if it wasn't for the high profiles of the accused? Just asking because it seems that way.

PPs originally decided not to run the case.

Family instructed Counsel to challenge this and he convinced PPS to throw it before a jury and see what would happen as opposed to presume what would happen. He is on a fair wedge for this

If convictions are not achieved by PPS after this trial costing many hundreds of thousands then there will be serious fallout at the PPS on the decision to prosecute.  Convictions or not the lives of 5 young people will be in shreds and their families will have to live with the consequences long after the MSM and social media interest has moved on to the next thing.
Dead right.
If the sexual offences act 2008 that David just quoted is the law that governs this case, then it should never have seen trial. The girl has been unable to specify any verbal or non-verbal indication she gave to the men to show she wasn't consenting until number 3 walked in. At least nothing that's been reported. The only specific detail we've heard from her is the admission that she took her own top off.
It looks almost certain that they will be found not guilty at this stage, from the evidence we've heard.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on February 25, 2018, 03:07:08 PM
The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 25, 2018, 03:35:29 PM
Quote from: trileacman on February 25, 2018, 03:07:08 PM
The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.
Exactly.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 25, 2018, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: trileacman on February 25, 2018, 03:07:08 PM
The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Such bullshit.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 25, 2018, 07:31:20 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 25, 2018, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 25, 2018, 09:58:44 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 25, 2018, 09:27:49 AM
Quote from: themac_23 on February 25, 2018, 09:00:56 AM
Quick question, would the PPS have taken this case to court if it wasn't for the high profiles of the accused? Just asking because it seems that way.

PPs originally decided not to run the case.

Family instructed Counsel to challenge this and he convinced PPS to throw it before a jury and see what would happen as opposed to presume what would happen. He is on a fair wedge for this

If convictions are not achieved by PPS after this trial costing many hundreds of thousands then there will be serious fallout at the PPS on the decision to prosecute.  Convictions or not the lives of 5 young people will be in shreds and their families will have to live with the consequences long after the MSM and social media interest has moved on to the next thing.
Dead right.
If the sexual offences act 2008 that David just quoted is the law that governs this case, then it should never have seen trial. The girl has been unable to specify any verbal or non-verbal indication she gave to the men to show she wasn't consenting until number 3 walked in. At least nothing that's been reported. The only specific detail we've heard from her is the admission that she took her own top off.
It looks almost certain that they will be found not guilty at this stage, from the evidence we've heard.

Reasonable doubt is all over this case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 07:36:07 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 25, 2018, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: trileacman on February 25, 2018, 03:07:08 PM
The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Such bullshit.

So expand
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 25, 2018, 07:50:25 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 25, 2018, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: trileacman on February 25, 2018, 03:07:08 PM
The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Such bullshit.

There are lots of articles in the press by women who said they were raped, and even their closest friends did not believe them.

Perhaps there is something in human nature that makes us think everyone likes sex, even on a first date.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 25, 2018, 08:26:28 PM
https://books.google.ie/books?id=OwgoBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT26&lpg=PT26&dq=compliance+vs+consent+rape+victims&source=bl&ots=CHcVMHCk60&sig=WyJG8g5Scm9FcKgPeU7evlfF5Ec&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiL6o6-7MHZAhUGasAKHTaoBNQQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=compliance%20vs%20consent%20rape%20victims&f=false

This is a link to a passage on compliance versus consent from a book based on interviews with rape victims. With all the regressive caveman talk I was curious to see what rape victims have to say on the subject and see if I could enlighten myself. Interestingly it speaks about compliance in situations where the victim is in fear or panic but not where there is no apparent threat and no reason to think if she'd asked them to stop that they would have hurt her, never mind the easy way out when another girl walked in.

Also it mentions that pleas to wear a condom, leave the victim's children unharmed etc. are signs of compliance rather than consent, which seems so obvious that it hardly needs stating. Again, it doesn't mention anything about victims undressing themselves despite the apparent absence of any physical threat or aggression. It seems that even rape victims are not quite as progressive as Syf, Seanie and co. on the subject.

I have no issue with anything in the passage I quoted, but some of the arguments made by posters(who think the lads are guilty)   on here about compliance versus consent simply defy logic.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 25, 2018, 08:36:58 PM
Stop trying to tart up the corpse that is your ancient prejudices. Only those looking for reasons to hold on to their backwards ideas on rape are even fooled in the first place.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 25, 2018, 08:46:18 PM
Backward ideas like the one that a girl who takes her own clothes off is up for it? Yep, I just can't seem to let that one go.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 09:10:49 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 25, 2018, 08:36:58 PM
Stop trying to tart up the corpse that is your ancient prejudices. Only those looking for reasons to hold on to their backwards ideas on rape are even fooled in the first place.

Come on, let's hear the legal qualifications you have again?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 25, 2018, 09:18:34 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 09:10:49 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 25, 2018, 08:36:58 PM
Stop trying to tart up the corpse that is your ancient prejudices. Only those looking for reasons to hold on to their backwards ideas on rape are even fooled in the first place.

Come on, let's hear the legal qualifications you have again?

Syferus's prejudices are more important that everyone elses. Someone earlier mentioned that wifes are regularly raped by their husband. In such cases, there is no evidence of domestic abuse, just rape. Does Syferus believe in the marriage vows, promising to love, honour and obey?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on February 25, 2018, 09:33:10 PM
Syferus definitely seems to be hot under the collar about this case and has found the rugby trio guilty long before they've even taken the stand.   Perhaps it's pressing the wrong buttons for him due to a personal experience?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 25, 2018, 09:41:41 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 25, 2018, 08:46:18 PM
Backward ideas like the one that a girl who takes her own clothes off is up for it? Yep, I just can't seem to let that one go.
Maybe she had no choice. I don't think legal insight is as important as how rapes unfold. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 25, 2018, 10:19:45 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 25, 2018, 08:46:18 PM
Backward ideas like the one that a girl who takes her own clothes off is up for it? Yep, I just can't seem to let that one go.
The complainant alleges she had her trousers and underwear pulled off.

By her testimony, she had already been raped by the time she was ordered to take her top off.

Having already been raped and not having voluntarily taken any clothes off in that time, it's easy to see why she'd then comply with an order to take her top off.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 25, 2018, 11:08:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 09:10:49 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 25, 2018, 08:36:58 PM
Stop trying to tart up the corpse that is your ancient prejudices. Only those looking for reasons to hold on to their backwards ideas on rape are even fooled in the first place.

Come on, let's hear the legal qualifications you have again?
Advisor to the local pitch and toss school. Isn't that legal enough for you?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 25, 2018, 11:19:03 PM
100 pages of pure speculation by Thursday I'd say.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 26, 2018, 03:25:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 25, 2018, 10:19:45 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 25, 2018, 08:46:18 PM
Backward ideas like the one that a girl who takes her own clothes off is up for it? Yep, I just can't seem to let that one go.
The complainant alleges she had her trousers and underwear pulled off.

By her testimony, she had already been raped by the time she was ordered to take her top off.

Having already been raped and not having voluntarily taken any clothes off in that time, it's easy to see why she'd then comply with an order to take her top off.
True enough Sid, I hadn't read that part of her testimony or thought about the chronology (that the clothes on her bottom half were off before her top).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 26, 2018, 03:49:16 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 26, 2018, 03:25:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 25, 2018, 10:19:45 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 25, 2018, 08:46:18 PM
Backward ideas like the one that a girl who takes her own clothes off is up for it? Yep, I just can't seem to let that one go.
The complainant alleges she had her trousers and underwear pulled off.

By her testimony, she had already been raped by the time she was ordered to take her top off.

Having already been raped and not having voluntarily taken any clothes off in that time, it's easy to see why she'd then comply with an order to take her top off.
True enough Sid, I hadn't read that part of her testimony or thought about the chronology (that the clothes on her bottom half were off before her top).

Not exactly surprising that you assumed the scenario that would make the rape victim look worst. Still disgusting.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 26, 2018, 08:07:54 AM
Quote from: Syferus on February 26, 2018, 03:49:16 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 26, 2018, 03:25:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 25, 2018, 10:19:45 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 25, 2018, 08:46:18 PM
Backward ideas like the one that a girl who takes her own clothes off is up for it? Yep, I just can't seem to let that one go.
The complainant alleges she had her trousers and underwear pulled off.

By her testimony, she had already been raped by the time she was ordered to take her top off.

Having already been raped and not having voluntarily taken any clothes off in that time, it's easy to see why she'd then comply with an order to take her top off.
True enough Sid, I hadn't read that part of her testimony or thought about the chronology (that the clothes on her bottom half were off before her top).

Not exactly surprising that you assumed the scenario that would make the rape victim look worst. Still disgusting.

Syferus, please desist from attacking people.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 26, 2018, 08:22:08 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 07:36:07 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 25, 2018, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: trileacman on February 25, 2018, 03:07:08 PM
The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Such bullshit.

So expand

The alleged victims testimony is evidence. It was really clear what she said. Ask Rory Best if you're unsure though he only heard one day of it....

Also - no one has said the difficulty in bringing forward a rape case and/or men being prejudiced against rape victims in "evidence".

And I think the "pondering" of the evidence by people who believe the prosecutions case is no worse than those who do not believe it. The level of analytical reasoning displayed here by "both sides" has been depressingly poor and symptomatic of the era we now live in.

So in short, the whole post was utter garbage and displayed a worrying lack of understanding of what the word "evidence" means.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 26, 2018, 09:27:36 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 25, 2018, 10:44:42 AM
Rape is no longer a common law offence in Northern Ireland. It is now contained within the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 which defines Rape as:

Rape
5.—(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

The point I was making was that penetration and a lack of consent does not mean it is automatically Rape. Should that be the case? Should the onus be on the perp to establish in advance that consent had been established? Those are arguments not relevant to this trial.
That definition applies solely to rape by men
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 26, 2018, 09:35:36 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 26, 2018, 08:22:08 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 07:36:07 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 25, 2018, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: trileacman on February 25, 2018, 03:07:08 PM
The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Such bullshit.

So expand

The alleged victims testimony is evidence. It was really clear what she said. Ask Rory Best if you're unsure though he only heard one day of it....

Also - no one has said the difficulty in bringing forward a rape case and/or men being prejudiced against rape victims in "evidence".

And I think the "pondering" of the evidence by people who believe the prosecutions case is no worse than those who do not believe it. The level of analytical reasoning displayed here by "both sides" has been depressingly poor and symptomatic of the era we now live in.

So in short, the whole post was utter garbage and displayed a worrying lack of understanding of what the word "evidence" means.

So will you be happy either way with the result of the case?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 26, 2018, 12:40:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 26, 2018, 09:35:36 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 26, 2018, 08:22:08 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 07:36:07 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 25, 2018, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: trileacman on February 25, 2018, 03:07:08 PM
The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Such bullshit.

So expand

The alleged victims testimony is evidence. It was really clear what she said. Ask Rory Best if you're unsure though he only heard one day of it....

Also - no one has said the difficulty in bringing forward a rape case and/or men being prejudiced against rape victims in "evidence".

And I think the "pondering" of the evidence by people who believe the prosecutions case is no worse than those who do not believe it. The level of analytical reasoning displayed here by "both sides" has been depressingly poor and symptomatic of the era we now live in.

So in short, the whole post was utter garbage and displayed a worrying lack of understanding of what the word "evidence" means.

So will you be happy either way with the result of the case?

I'm not sure what you're getting at or why you asked that question but I don't think it's something to be happy about either way.

Seeing as you seems to wish to know my personal opinion - I think that the girl was raped. I'm actually fairly sure that happened. I think it's a close run thing as to whether they'll be convicted but I believe they should be. Usual caveats inserted as to not seeing all evidence, not seeing witnesses on the stand etc. It's just my opinion and I'm stronger on it now than I was at the outset of the trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 26, 2018, 12:48:37 PM
Juror ill. No evidence today.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 26, 2018, 01:10:05 PM
I was reading this again


https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/paddy-jackson-told-police-he-presumed-alleged-rape-victim-wanted-it-to-happen-court-hears-36636706.html

"Jackson was interviewed about the incident on June 30, and told police he felt it had been a "good" experience to have oral sex with the same person as Olding, the jury heard as transcripts were read to the court.

Jackson, who said he found the incident awkward to talk about, believed the woman had been flirtatious towards him, the court heard.

He told police: "I think she was flirting with me and I was pretty sure that something was going to happen between us."

He said the sexual activity happened after the complainant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, followed him to his room for a second time that night.

The pair had earlier shared a consensual kiss, but when he admitted to the alleged victim that he did not know her name they left the room and returned downstairs, he said.

He said they "just kind of picked up where we left off" when they returned to his room later, kissing and touching before she began performing oral sex on him.

Olding then came into the room and got onto the bed too and the woman performed oral sex on him, Jackson said.

At this point, Jackson began using his fingers on the woman, he said.

Asked by the officer how the woman seemed, he said: "Fine, I didn't force myself on her so I presumed it was happening and she wanted it to happen. She could have left if she wanted to, but she didn't."

He said he had seen some blood.

In the complainant's police interview, which the trial has already heard, she alleged the sexual activity had been rough and she bled.

Asked if he thought it might be hurting her, Jackson said: "If it did, I would've stopped, I definitely would've stopped."

He added: "If she didn't want to be there I would never have stopped her (leaving) or tried to keep her there. No way."

He denied penetrating her with his penis."

I just don't think it's coherent given the other evidence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 26, 2018, 01:44:34 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 26, 2018, 12:40:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 26, 2018, 09:35:36 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 26, 2018, 08:22:08 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 07:36:07 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 25, 2018, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: trileacman on February 25, 2018, 03:07:08 PM
The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Such bullshit.

So expand

The alleged victims testimony is evidence. It was really clear what she said. Ask Rory Best if you're unsure though he only heard one day of it....

Also - no one has said the difficulty in bringing forward a rape case and/or men being prejudiced against rape victims in "evidence".

And I think the "pondering" of the evidence by people who believe the prosecutions case is no worse than those who do not believe it. The level of analytical reasoning displayed here by "both sides" has been depressingly poor and symptomatic of the era we now live in.

So in short, the whole post was utter garbage and displayed a worrying lack of understanding of what the word "evidence" means.

So will you be happy either way with the result of the case?

I'm not sure what you're getting at or why you asked that question but I don't think it's something to be happy about either way.

Seeing as you seems to wish to know my personal opinion - I think that the girl was raped. I'm actually fairly sure that happened. I think it's a close run thing as to whether they'll be convicted but I believe they should be. Usual caveats inserted as to not seeing all evidence, not seeing witnesses on the stand etc. It's just my opinion and I'm stronger on it now than I was at the outset of the trial.

So even after the stuff in bold, you're going on your gut feeling?

Happy probably wrong word to use, what i meant was that given that the jury are hearing all the evidence, seeing the witnesses and forming an opinion on that rather the stuff we've got, you'd be ok with the jury's decision?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on February 26, 2018, 07:59:24 PM
How do the defendants claim the whole thing came to an end? Or has that been discussed?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 27, 2018, 09:28:07 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 26, 2018, 01:44:34 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 26, 2018, 12:40:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 26, 2018, 09:35:36 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 26, 2018, 08:22:08 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 07:36:07 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 25, 2018, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: trileacman on February 25, 2018, 03:07:08 PM
The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Such bullshit.

So expand

The alleged victims testimony is evidence. It was really clear what she said. Ask Rory Best if you're unsure though he only heard one day of it....

Also - no one has said the difficulty in bringing forward a rape case and/or men being prejudiced against rape victims in "evidence".

And I think the "pondering" of the evidence by people who believe the prosecutions case is no worse than those who do not believe it. The level of analytical reasoning displayed here by "both sides" has been depressingly poor and symptomatic of the era we now live in.

So in short, the whole post was utter garbage and displayed a worrying lack of understanding of what the word "evidence" means.

So will you be happy either way with the result of the case?

I'm not sure what you're getting at or why you asked that question but I don't think it's something to be happy about either way.

Seeing as you seems to wish to know my personal opinion - I think that the girl was raped. I'm actually fairly sure that happened. I think it's a close run thing as to whether they'll be convicted but I believe they should be. Usual caveats inserted as to not seeing all evidence, not seeing witnesses on the stand etc. It's just my opinion and I'm stronger on it now than I was at the outset of the trial.

So even after the stuff in bold, you're going on your gut feeling?

Happy probably wrong word to use, what i meant was that given that the jury are hearing all the evidence, seeing the witnesses and forming an opinion on that rather the stuff we've got, you'd be ok with the jury's decision?

I give up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: stephenite on February 27, 2018, 09:45:30 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 27, 2018, 09:28:07 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 26, 2018, 01:44:34 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 26, 2018, 12:40:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 26, 2018, 09:35:36 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 26, 2018, 08:22:08 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 25, 2018, 07:36:07 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 25, 2018, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: trileacman on February 25, 2018, 03:07:08 PM
The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Such bullshit.

So expand

The alleged victims testimony is evidence. It was really clear what she said. Ask Rory Best if you're unsure though he only heard one day of it....

Also - no one has said the difficulty in bringing forward a rape case and/or men being prejudiced against rape victims in "evidence".

And I think the "pondering" of the evidence by people who believe the prosecutions case is no worse than those who do not believe it. The level of analytical reasoning displayed here by "both sides" has been depressingly poor and symptomatic of the era we now live in.

So in short, the whole post was utter garbage and displayed a worrying lack of understanding of what the word "evidence" means.

So will you be happy either way with the result of the case?

I'm not sure what you're getting at or why you asked that question but I don't think it's something to be happy about either way.

Seeing as you seems to wish to know my personal opinion - I think that the girl was raped. I'm actually fairly sure that happened. I think it's a close run thing as to whether they'll be convicted but I believe they should be. Usual caveats inserted as to not seeing all evidence, not seeing witnesses on the stand etc. It's just my opinion and I'm stronger on it now than I was at the outset of the trial.

So even after the stuff in bold, you're going on your gut feeling?

Happy probably wrong word to use, what i meant was that given that the jury are hearing all the evidence, seeing the witnesses and forming an opinion on that rather the stuff we've got, you'd be ok with the jury's decision?

I give up.

Wisest course of action Seanie
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 27, 2018, 09:50:31 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 26, 2018, 07:59:24 PM
How do the defendants claim the whole thing came to an end? Or has that been discussed?

Like in all good Hollywood thrillers, the credits rolled.

But your point is good. Was she in tears? Did they all have a fag?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 27, 2018, 12:49:09 PM
McIlroy frequently sleeps in beside Jackson because Jackson has a massive bed?

As likely a story as Jackson was only dry humping her from behind  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 27, 2018, 01:38:30 PM
Jury down to 11. 10 -1 for majority verdict
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 27, 2018, 01:53:55 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 27, 2018, 12:49:09 PM
McIlroy frequently sleeps in beside Jackson because Jackson has a massive bed?

As likely a story as Jackson eat only dry humping her from behind  ::)

Somebody is lying - what they claim to have discussed the next day "hungover" is at odds with what their whatsapp conversation suggests. From Irish times:

QuoteThe detective asked Mr Olding if he and Mr Jackson discussed the incident the next day.

"We pretty much just talked about it, what happened," Mr Olding replied. "We were hungover, we were drunk when it happened."

He said Mr Jackson asked him: "Did you get a blowjob? My memory is a bit hazy." Mr Olding said he replied he did. Mr Jackson told him he did too.

They both specifically said they didn't have vaginal or anal sex with the woman, he said.

On whatsapp:
QuoteOlding allegedly wrote on WhatsApp "We are all top sh*****s" and "There was a bit of spit roasting going on last night fellas".

He later added: "It was like a merry-go-around at a carnival."

Paddy Jackson allegedly replied: "There was a lot of spit."


Their stories have inconsistencies, why refer to "shagging" and "spit roasting" if neither of them actually had vagina sex with her? And then go on to tell police that the next day in person they (Jackson and Olding) told each other they didn't have vaginal sex with her?

On an aside thankfully they have got rid of that sicknote juror, hopefully less dispruption from now on...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on February 27, 2018, 04:24:27 PM
https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/paddy-jackson-stuart-olding-rape-14343413
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 27, 2018, 05:39:05 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on February 27, 2018, 04:24:27 PM
https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/paddy-jackson-stuart-olding-rape-14343413

I hate that site - full of crap advertising overlays
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dire Ear on February 27, 2018, 05:55:44 PM
a jury of eight men and three women.. Is it pure chance the gender balance in jury duty?  Would 50-50 not be better in cases like this?  Yes, I know it's down to 11 now.....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 27, 2018, 05:56:47 PM
QuoteThen Paddy was still fooling around with her and was going to have sex with her again

Again? Sure Jackson only dry humped her...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 06:03:29 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on February 27, 2018, 05:55:44 PM
a jury of eight men and three women.. Is it pure chance the gender balance in jury duty?  Would 50-50 not be better in cases like this?  Yes, I know it's down to 11 now.....

The juror will be replaced.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: red hander on February 27, 2018, 06:45:32 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 06:03:29 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on February 27, 2018, 05:55:44 PM
a jury of eight men and three women.. Is it pure chance the gender balance in jury duty?  Would 50-50 not be better in cases like this?  Yes, I know it's down to 11 now.....

The juror will be replaced.

Is there someone on standby who has been in court every day?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 06:51:20 PM
Quote from: red hander on February 27, 2018, 06:45:32 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 06:03:29 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on February 27, 2018, 05:55:44 PM
a jury of eight men and three women.. Is it pure chance the gender balance in jury duty?  Would 50-50 not be better in cases like this?  Yes, I know it's down to 11 now.....

The juror will be replaced.

Is there someone on standby who has been in court every day?

The 12 jurors are chosen randomly from a pool of 15 so one of the three replacements will be used.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 27, 2018, 06:59:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 06:03:29 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on February 27, 2018, 05:55:44 PM
a jury of eight men and three women.. Is it pure chance the gender balance in jury duty?  Would 50-50 not be better in cases like this?  Yes, I know it's down to 11 now.....

The juror will be replaced.


No they won't.

The jury is chosen before the case. There is a list of jurors and the prosecution and defence have the opportunity to challenge etc. You can't pick and chose procedure. There has to be uniformity.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 07:19:52 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 27, 2018, 06:59:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 06:03:29 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on February 27, 2018, 05:55:44 PM
a jury of eight men and three women.. Is it pure chance the gender balance in jury duty?  Would 50-50 not be better in cases like this?  Yes, I know it's down to 11 now.....

The juror will be replaced.


No they won't.

The jury is chosen before the case. There is a list of jurors and the prosecution and defence have the opportunity to challenge etc. You can't pick and chose procedure. There has to be uniformity.

QuoteThe judge then decides whether this jury member should stand down or proceed. If the court requires the juror to stand down, one of the remaining three jurors will fill the space.

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/jury-selection-process/#

I'm going off this. May only apply if they are dismissed before the case?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 27, 2018, 07:35:40 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 07:19:52 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 27, 2018, 06:59:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 06:03:29 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on February 27, 2018, 05:55:44 PM
a jury of eight men and three women.. Is it pure chance the gender balance in jury duty?  Would 50-50 not be better in cases like this?  Yes, I know it's down to 11 now.....

The juror will be replaced.


No they won't.

The jury is chosen before the case. There is a list of jurors and the prosecution and defence have the opportunity to challenge etc. You can't pick and chose procedure. There has to be uniformity.

QuoteThe judge then decides whether this jury member should stand down or proceed. If the court requires the juror to stand down, one of the remaining three jurors will fill the space.

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/jury-selection-process/#

I'm going off this. May only apply if they are dismissed before the case?

Legal qualifications seem to be the internet! Hmmm
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 27, 2018, 07:38:25 PM
A juror can never be replaced. I could be wrong but I think the minimum amount of jurors that have to be left is 9. I know I was once involved where 2 were removed.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 27, 2018, 07:43:55 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/harrison-accused-of-providing-sanitised-version-of-events-in-police-interview-rape-trial-hears-36651274.html

At the start of the interviews, an officer told Harrison "police are not happy with some aspects of the statement you made" earlier in the year.

Amongst aspects he was questioned about was the the comment he made to Harrison about a woman crying rape. When asked why, out of all the charges, he speculated his friends would be accused of rape, he said "I don't even recall saying that to him."

When pressed, Harrison said he "guessed" as it involved "high profile sports stars" and he had seen similar cases on the news.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 27, 2018, 07:49:15 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 06:03:29 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on February 27, 2018, 05:55:44 PM
a jury of eight men and three women.. Is it pure chance the gender balance in jury duty?  Would 50-50 not be better in cases like this?  Yes, I know it's down to 11 now.....

The juror will be replaced.
No. That won't happen

Sometimes it's better to say nothing and let people think you are a fool than say something and remove any doubt. Gobshite
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 27, 2018, 08:02:21 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 07:19:52 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 27, 2018, 06:59:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 06:03:29 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on February 27, 2018, 05:55:44 PM
a jury of eight men and three women.. Is it pure chance the gender balance in jury duty?  Would 50-50 not be better in cases like this?  Yes, I know it's down to 11 now.....

The juror will be replaced.


No they won't.

The jury is chosen before the case. There is a list of jurors and the prosecution and defence have the opportunity to challenge etc. You can't pick and chose procedure. There has to be uniformity.

QuoteThe judge then decides whether this jury member should stand down or proceed. If the court requires the juror to stand down, one of the remaining three jurors will fill the space.

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/jury-selection-process/#

I'm going off this. May only apply if they are dismissed before the case?

Is this proof that you know feck all squared?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on February 27, 2018, 09:24:26 PM
Interesting stuff, turns out the man who knew all about the case from day one, has them hung drawn and quartered from that same day, found time for multiple soliloquy's and was fit to correct and criticise anyone who dared give a view that wasn't to his beliefs gets his info from the internet...

I just don't know what to believe anymore.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 27, 2018, 09:28:03 PM
Jury selection process is quite straightforward. A panel of more than 50 will convened using the electoral register. From that panel 15-18 or so will be randomly selected. The first 12 will be used as the jury with the first person being the foreperson. The reason more than 12 are called is that some will be excused for any of a plethora of reasons tanging from knowing witnesses to having holidays booked etc.

As BC says jurors can also be challenged however a few years ago the rules changed so that jurors can only now be challenged when one side can show cause.

Once 12 are chosen the trial will begin and the excess jurors will return to the panel. They may be required for other cases. Once the trial has commenced if a juror is discharged they will not be replaced but the numbers required for majority verdicts will be amended if we get to that stage.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 27, 2018, 09:33:04 PM
Very quiet day on the comments on the evidence/statements if you can call them that. Such liars.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 27, 2018, 09:35:45 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 27, 2018, 09:33:04 PM
Very quiet day on the comments on the evidence/statements if you can call them that. Such liars.
Sorry. We didn't know you were there on the night and are able to give a first hand account

Do you make a habit of looking in people's bedroom windows?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 27, 2018, 09:36:55 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 27, 2018, 09:33:04 PM
Very quiet day on the comments on the evidence/statements if you can call them that. Such liars.

Liars or could have been pissed and struggled to remember. Either way it's down to the jury to decide. Thankfully otherwise you and the barrister Syferus would have them strung up!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: michaelg on February 27, 2018, 09:57:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 27, 2018, 09:36:55 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 27, 2018, 09:33:04 PM
Very quiet day on the comments on the evidence/statements if you can call them that. Such liars.

Liars or could have been pissed and struggled to remember. Either way it's down to the jury to decide. Thankfully otherwise you and the barrister Syferus would have them strung up!
That a typo?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 27, 2018, 10:01:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 27, 2018, 09:36:55 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 27, 2018, 09:33:04 PM
Very quiet day on the comments on the evidence/statements if you can call them that. Such liars.

Liars or could have been pissed and struggled to remember. Either way it's down to the jury to decide. Thankfully otherwise you and the barrister Syferus would have them strung up!

Keep making excuses, good lad.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rois on February 27, 2018, 10:02:25 PM
If they were so drunk as to forget, would this bring recklessness very much to the fore in the prosecution's argument, where the accused didn't care if they had consent or not?

I have to admit, I was incredibly confused today with the statements from McIlroy - seemed very much at odds with anything else that has been said by others (including the complainant on his role). 

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 27, 2018, 10:05:23 PM
Quote from: Rois on February 27, 2018, 10:02:25 PM
If they were so drunk as to forget, would this bring recklessness very much to the fore in the prosecution's argument, where the accused didn't care if they had consent or not?

I have to admit, I was incredibly confused today with the statements from McIlroy - seemed very much at odds with anything else that has been said by others (including the complainant on his role).

At best their evidence has to be considered very suspect and unreliable. It took a while but we saw today why Harrison is charged.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 27, 2018, 10:11:13 PM
Yeah bad state of affairs.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 10:16:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 27, 2018, 10:11:13 PM
Yeah bad state of affairs.

Only if your deeply held wish is for the rapists not to be convicted, which is very much seems to be.

Very good day for the girl and some measure of vindication when the friend of the rapists himself thought a rape had occurred.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 27, 2018, 10:18:12 PM
Quote from: Rois on February 27, 2018, 10:02:25 PM
If they were so drunk as to forget, would this bring recklessness very much to the fore in the prosecution's argument, where the accused didn't care if they had consent or not?

I have to admit, I was incredibly confused today with the statements from McIlroy - seemed very much at odds with anything else that has been said by others (including the complainant on his role).

Recklessness isn't an issue. The jury will be told they can only convict if they are satisfied to the requisite standard that the defendants did not reasonably believe the injured party was not consenting.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 27, 2018, 10:23:37 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 10:16:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 27, 2018, 10:11:13 PM
Yeah bad state of affairs.

Only if your deeply held wish is for the rapists not to be convicted, which is very much seems to be.

Very good day for the girl and some measure of vindication when the friend of the rapists himself thought a rape had occurred.

Which legal search did you get that from?  :D

There's me thinking you had some background in legal stuff and it works out that you're just full of shit
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 27, 2018, 10:33:48 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 10:16:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 27, 2018, 10:11:13 PM
Yeah bad state of affairs.

Only if your deeply held wish is for the rapists not to be convicted, which is very much seems to be.

Very good day for the girl and some measure of vindication when the friend of the rapists himself thought a rape had occurred.
He didn't think a rape had occurred, he believed that the girl "had cried rape". That's not the same thing. Try to keep up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rois on February 27, 2018, 10:35:18 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 27, 2018, 10:18:12 PM
Recklessness isn't an issue. The jury will be told they can only convict if they are satisfied to the requisite standard that the defendants did not reasonably believe the injured party was not consenting.

OK - though I'm struggling with your explanation (my fault, not yours).   
If I interpret your wording in my own words, the jury can only find guilty if they reasonably believe that Jackson and Olding didn't think she was not saying yes.  That makes no sense to me - sorry!  Is there another less legal way of explaining it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 11:07:06 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 27, 2018, 10:33:48 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 10:16:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 27, 2018, 10:11:13 PM
Yeah bad state of affairs.

Only if your deeply held wish is for the rapists not to be convicted, which is very much seems to be.

Very good day for the girl and some measure of vindication when the friend of the rapists himself thought a rape had occurred.
He didn't think a rape had occurred, he believed that the girl "had cried rape". That's not the same thing. Try to keep up.

So he was covering up a rape that he didn't think happened. Right.

Some of ye seem to have serious trouble drawing straight lines when it comes to evidence that incriminates the defendants, or in this case a defendants incrimating themselves directly. It seems like it is easier for minds to bend over backwards to find reasons why the obvious answer is not the answer, but when roles are reversed there's pathetic attempts at discrediting the victim.

Everyone else can see the double standard in effect even if some refuse to.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 27, 2018, 11:21:39 PM
I'd say Syferus you use crayons to draw!

I take the piss on most of these threads, I couldn't give a rats ass either way on most topics. But you actually believe your posts (or the ones you cut and paste from the internet) make people believe you!

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 28, 2018, 12:52:06 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 27, 2018, 09:35:45 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 27, 2018, 09:33:04 PM
Very quiet day on the comments on the evidence/statements if you can call them that. Such liars.
Sorry. We didn't know you were there on the night and are able to give a first hand account

Do you make a habit of looking in people's bedroom windows?
Nobody has to have been anywhere to know that the interviews given by the four defendants massively contradict each other.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 28, 2018, 01:22:55 AM
Quote from: Rois on February 27, 2018, 10:35:18 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 27, 2018, 10:18:12 PM
Recklessness isn't an issue. The jury will be told they can only convict if they are satisfied to the requisite standard that the defendants did not reasonably believe the injured party was not consenting.

OK - though I'm struggling with your explanation (my fault, not yours).   
If I interpret your wording in my own words, the jury can only find guilty if they reasonably believe that Jackson and Olding didn't think she was not saying yes.  That makes no sense to me - sorry!  Is there another less legal way of explaining it?

I'll try you'll have to forgive my dyslexia and use of double negatives. The jury will be told to look at all the evidence in the case. Having done so if they are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt (often referred to as being firmly convinced) that penetrative sex occurred and they a similarly satisfied that the injured party did not consent then they will have to consider what was the reasonable belief of the defendants at the time. Only if they are firmly convinced that either the defendants didn't believe the injured party consented or that in the circumstances that belief was not reasonable can they convict of rape.

To use extreme examples (which are not true to life and shouldn't be taken as indication of anything other than a hypothetical) if a defendant says I believed she had consented but the evidence in the trial was the girl was saying no very loudly or screaming out for help or crying that might be evidence a jury is told they can consider in deciding whether or not the defendants belief was reasonable. In that example it almost certainly wouldn't be.

Rape trials are rarely ever as straightforward. Another better example might be when the defendant says she said she was happy to have sex so we had sex even I knew she was soo drunk she couldn't stand and didn't know where she was. In that case the jury would be able to take into account the defendants knowledge of the state of the victim and could thereafter form a view that in all the circumstances the defendant knew the victim was too drunk to consent and therefore could not reasonably have believed that she consented.

Where it gets much more difficult is when the defence is for example she didn't say yes but she didn't say no and she seemed happy enough. Or she was a bit drunk but not too drunk or I didn't realise how drunk she was and she went along with what I was doing.

In this case I wouldn't envy the jury but again I don't know all the evidence

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 28, 2018, 01:37:15 AM
I should add I may have misunderstood your original post. Recklessness as a legal concept wouldn't apply here as it would mean that individuals may be convicted if they didn't take the appropriate steps to ensure consent.  That is to say if recklessness applied then even if they reasonably believed what they were doing was consensual defendants could still be convicted because they failed to ascertain if the victim was consenting either by for example forgetting to ask or getting very drunk.

That may not have been what you meant though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 28, 2018, 01:52:56 AM
Quote from: Rois on February 27, 2018, 10:35:18 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 27, 2018, 10:18:12 PM
Recklessness isn't an issue. The jury will be told they can only convict if they are satisfied to the requisite standard that the defendants did not reasonably believe the injured party was not consenting.

OK - though I'm struggling with your explanation (my fault, not yours).   
If I interpret your wording in my own words, the jury can only find guilty if they reasonably believe that Jackson and Olding didn't think she was not saying yes.  That makes no sense to me - sorry!  Is there another less legal way of explaining it?
Reckless is a legal issue and relates to this case. What you wrote Rois was pertinent.
An accused person could be judged reckless in being somewhat aware that the woman was not complaint, but carried on regardless. A legal standard of consent is that the accused genuinely believed he had consent from the woman. The jury might be asked that (about the accuseds'  belief being genuine)  from the Judge in this case.
We already know that merely having a belief that a woman was consenting is not a legal defence


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 02:58:09 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 28, 2018, 12:52:06 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 27, 2018, 09:35:45 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 27, 2018, 09:33:04 PM
Very quiet day on the comments on the evidence/statements if you can call them that. Such liars.
Sorry. We didn't know you were there on the night and are able to give a first hand account

Do you make a habit of looking in people's bedroom windows?
Nobody has to have been anywhere to know that the interviews given by the four defendants massively contradict each other.
If it had been one defendant it would have been easier to make up a story and stick to it  . Olding and McIlroy didnt see how the claimant ended up without her trousers and underwear. It probably seemed too porn to be true . And they were drunk.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 06:30:46 AM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/contradictions-large-and-small-emerge-in-the-narrative-as-claims-of-damage-limitation-heard-36652424.html
"
It was "damage limitation", the detective had suggested to Rory Harrison during his final interview.

Going for lunch the next day had offered the friends a chance to "get around the table to talk about what happened", he put it to him.

"I deny that," Mr Harrison had said.

The detective continued, saying the alleged victim had said he did nothing wrong and on the face of it, that was true. However, he put it to him that he had deliberately intended to withhold information to protect his friends.

"You knew this was not consensual from an early stage," said the detective.

"You took her off-site to protect their reputations.

"It was a deliberate act on your part in the hope of calming her down and to discourage her from going to the police."

They had all met up the next day to provide his friends with the opportunity of corroborating their story, the detective continued.

"I deny it," Mr Harrison had repeated.

"Rory has given his full explanation for everything," his solicitor told the police, after his client had been further pressed.



Not for the first time, many considerable contradictions, large and small, emerged in the narrative.

In a repeat of the format used to read out Paddy Jackson's police interviews, Mr Harrison's interviews were dramatised, with the detective in the box reading his own lines and, this time, Rosemary Walsh, for the prosecution, reading the part of the defendant in her soft London tones.

It was admittedly slightly incongruous.

Unlike Mr Harrison's, Blane McIlroy's police interviews were played aloud in court, containing his claim that the alleged victim had voluntarily performed a sex act on him - although this is inconsistent with the accounts of all the other parties, including the alleged victim herself.

Smaller details were also gleaned - such as the fact Mr Harrison did not consider Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding or Blane McIlroy to be his "best friends or anything like that", and did not socialise with them often. Mr McIlroy lives in America, so he 'rarely' sees him, he added."
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rois on February 28, 2018, 07:32:04 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 28, 2018, 01:37:15 AM
I should add I may have misunderstood your original post. Recklessness as a legal concept wouldn't apply here as it would mean that individuals may be convicted if they didn't take the appropriate steps to ensure consent.  That is to say if recklessness applied then even if they reasonably believed what they were doing was consensual defendants could still be convicted because they failed to ascertain if the victim was consenting either by for example forgetting to ask or getting very drunk.

That may not have been what you meant though.
This was what I meant as it came out in a conversation with my barrister brother in law early in the case when he introduced this concept to me. He had sat in on a few sessions though he is not involved,and he was speculating on possible arguments for conviction. We haven't talked about it since.  So how come  it wouldn't apply here ?  The last part of what you said sounds plausible but there's obv a reason why  it doesn't apply.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 09:48:28 AM
Really can't see how Harrison can be convicted. I wouldn't want him organising a cover up story for me if I was charged with an offence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 10:12:25 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 09:48:28 AM
Really can't see how Harrison can be convicted. I wouldn't want him organising a cover up story for me if I was charged with an offence.

So he shouldn't be charged because he did it badly? Is that what you're saying?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 10:43:07 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 10:12:25 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 09:48:28 AM
Really can't see how Harrison can be convicted. I wouldn't want him organising a cover up story for me if I was charged with an offence.

So he shouldn't be charged because he did it badly? Is that what you're saying?

You cannot even understand a simple sentence. 

Maybe you should give up again [that didn't last too long the last time unfortunately] as you are becoming as hysterical as that other buffoon.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 28, 2018, 11:06:01 AM
Quote from: Orior on February 27, 2018, 08:02:21 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 07:19:52 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 27, 2018, 06:59:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 27, 2018, 06:03:29 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on February 27, 2018, 05:55:44 PM
a jury of eight men and three women.. Is it pure chance the gender balance in jury duty?  Would 50-50 not be better in cases like this?  Yes, I know it's down to 11 now.....

The juror will be replaced.


No they won't.

The jury is chosen before the case. There is a list of jurors and the prosecution and defence have the opportunity to challenge etc. You can't pick and chose procedure. There has to be uniformity.

QuoteThe judge then decides whether this jury member should stand down or proceed. If the court requires the juror to stand down, one of the remaining three jurors will fill the space.

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/jury-selection-process/#

I'm going off this. May only apply if they are dismissed before the case?

Is this proof that you know feck all squared?

I see Syf never responds to a post when he is clearly wrong to even admit his fallacy
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ? 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 28, 2018, 12:03:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

I'm in exactly the same position.  The evidence from the lads' interviews has been less than convincing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 28, 2018, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: Franko on February 28, 2018, 12:03:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

I'm in exactly the same position.  The evidence from the lads' interviews has been less than convincing.

At this point I haven't a clue. . . there are holes in the lads testimonies and there are holes in the girls testimony so it's coming down to a he said she said for me.

In that case can you convict someone to go to jail? Can you let 2 possible rapists back on the street?

Also as has been stated more than a few times. We're getting 2-3 lines of testimony every 20 minutes so we're missing a lot of what's going on.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 28, 2018, 12:10:34 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 28, 2018, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: Franko on February 28, 2018, 12:03:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

I'm in exactly the same position.  The evidence from the lads' interviews has been less than convincing.

At this point I haven't a clue. . . there are holes in the lads testimonies and there are holes in the girls testimony so it's coming down to a he said she said for me.

In that case can you convict someone to go to jail? Can you let 2 possible rapists back on the street?

Also as has been stated more than a few times. We're getting 2-3 lines of testimony every 20 minutes so we're missing a lot of what's going on.

Possible isn't enough for a conviction though. Beyond reasonable doubt is a high bar
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on February 28, 2018, 12:15:50 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

Thats bang on where I am based on my admittedly brief knowledge of the published testimony.

One thing that does not make sense to me in the guys testimony was that none of them had condoms. I am open to correction here but i think both jackson and olding made reference to this which seems slightly strange, especially given it was Jackson's house. I know there are  reasons why this might be  the case but I know that if I went into our club dressing room and told the 15 or so 20-25 years olds that i would pay £100 for a condom there would be no shortage of takers.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 12:37:45 PM
What are condoms?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 28, 2018, 12:38:51 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?
And I live in Connacht.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 28, 2018, 12:40:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 12:37:45 PM
What are condoms?
French rugby captain in the 1980s.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on February 28, 2018, 12:40:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 12:37:45 PM
What are condoms?
French rugby captain in the 1980s.

Mates!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on February 28, 2018, 12:47:56 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

The bit I've bolded is pretty much where I am.

I don't believe they had reasonable belief that she was consenting, they just assumed she was consenting due to their arrogance and sense of power, entitlement and invincibility, fuelled by alcohol, allied to a "blokish" ignorance of the concepts of consent and boundaries.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 28, 2018, 12:50:25 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

No.  In my gut I'm leaning towards guilty, but my head tells me the prosecution might not make the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold and they'll be acquitted.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: shezam on February 28, 2018, 01:03:35 PM
Text messages exchange here https://twitter.com/ConorGallaghe_r
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 01:14:51 PM
Guilty of being complete dicks... What normally happens in these type cases is that someone normally comes out of the woodwork claiming to have been raped also.. Any news on that?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on February 28, 2018, 01:29:21 PM
Jesus they come across as some shower of wankers, "why are we all such legends ?"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 28, 2018, 01:33:27 PM
Quote from: Minder on February 28, 2018, 01:29:21 PM
Jesus they come across as some shower of w**kers, "why are we all such legends ?"
I'd say every group whatsapp would be the same. Young fellas in their early 20s get on that way.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 01:37:29 PM
Quote from: Minder on February 28, 2018, 01:29:21 PM
Jesus they come across as some shower of w**kers, "why are we all such legends ?"


Proper locker room stuff and standard chat on the whatsapps and snapchats and whatever else is out there for young bucks on the tear..

23 year olds at the time playing for Ulster and Ireland, they must have been getting their egos stroked most nights they were out..

No excuse BTW and some of the evidence from the police interviews will be making them sweat in their seats this week, maybe one or two from the jury were sitting on the fence will have stepped over it now


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on February 28, 2018, 01:47:48 PM
Their behaviour on whatsapp is part of the reason why I think they'll be found not guilty. Who in their right mind would get on like that the day after knowingly raped a girl.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 01:52:32 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 28, 2018, 01:33:27 PM
Quote from: Minder on February 28, 2018, 01:29:21 PM
Jesus they come across as some shower of w**kers, "why are we all such legends ?"
I'd say every group whatsapp would be the same. Young fellas in their early 20s get on that way.

Far from every one but more common than Minder thinks. Being so callous after a rape, however, goes far beyond the usual locker room boys-will-be-boys guff. It's a total indictment of their attitudes towards women.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 28, 2018, 01:52:47 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 28, 2018, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: Franko on February 28, 2018, 12:03:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

I'm in exactly the same position.  The evidence from the lads' interviews has been less than convincing.

At this point I haven't a clue. . . there are holes in the lads testimonies and there are holes in the girls testimony so it's coming down to a he said she said for me.

In that case can you convict someone to go to jail? Can you let 2 possible rapists back on the street?

Also as has been stated more than a few times. We're getting 2-3 lines of testimony every 20 minutes so we're missing a lot of what's going on.
That's a bit of a stretch screen. I don't think these lads are a menace to society. Arseholes yes but I would suggest no different to other lads their age playing in high profile teams. Consent may not have been obvious but I'm sure there are no written contracts at 3am when all parties have been drinking. I find it VERY hard to believe that these 3 lads KNOWINGLY raped a girl and then sent the texts they did over the next few days about "roasting" etc. I fully believe that they believe they did nothing wrong. Now that's not to say she didn't feel threatened or under pressure to perform but there is nuance and shades of grey that knobs like Seanie and Syf are unwilling to see.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 01:53:38 PM
Quote from: shezam on February 28, 2018, 01:03:35 PM
Text messages exchange here https://twitter.com/ConorGallaghe_r

1.   11.28am June 30th, (two days after alleged rape and shortly before police arrest Jackson and Olding) text from McIlroy to a friend: "Pumped a bird with Jacko on Monday. Roasted her. Then another on Tuesday night."


What is the legal definition of "roasting" ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 01:54:43 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 28, 2018, 01:52:47 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 28, 2018, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: Franko on February 28, 2018, 12:03:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

I'm in exactly the same position.  The evidence from the lads' interviews has been less than convincing.

At this point I haven't a clue. . . there are holes in the lads testimonies and there are holes in the girls testimony so it's coming down to a he said she said for me.

In that case can you convict someone to go to jail? Can you let 2 possible rapists back on the street?

Also as has been stated more than a few times. We're getting 2-3 lines of testimony every 20 minutes so we're missing a lot of what's going on.
That's a bit of a stretch screen. I don't think these lads are a menace to society. Arseholes yes but I would suggest no different to other lads their age playing in high profile teams. Consent may not have been obvious but I'm sure there are no written contracts at 3am when all parties have been drinking. I find it VERY hard to believe that these 3 lads KNOWINGLY raped a girl and then sent the texts they did over the next few days about "roasting" etc. I fully believe that they believe they did nothing wrong. Now that's not to say she didn't feel threatened or under pressure to perform but there is nuance and shades of grey that knobs like Seanie and Syf are unwilling to see.

Rapists are a menace to society. The rest of your attempted mitigation feels very hollow once you accept that fact.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on February 28, 2018, 02:00:03 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 01:54:43 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 28, 2018, 01:52:47 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 28, 2018, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: Franko on February 28, 2018, 12:03:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

I'm in exactly the same position.  The evidence from the lads' interviews has been less than convincing.

At this point I haven't a clue. . . there are holes in the lads testimonies and there are holes in the girls testimony so it's coming down to a he said she said for me.

In that case can you convict someone to go to jail? Can you let 2 possible rapists back on the street?

Also as has been stated more than a few times. We're getting 2-3 lines of testimony every 20 minutes so we're missing a lot of what's going on.
That's a bit of a stretch screen. I don't think these lads are a menace to society. Arseholes yes but I would suggest no different to other lads their age playing in high profile teams. Consent may not have been obvious but I'm sure there are no written contracts at 3am when all parties have been drinking. I find it VERY hard to believe that these 3 lads KNOWINGLY raped a girl and then sent the texts they did over the next few days about "roasting" etc. I fully believe that they believe they did nothing wrong. Now that's not to say she didn't feel threatened or under pressure to perform but there is nuance and shades of grey that knobs like Seanie and Syf are unwilling to see.

Rapists are a menace to society. The rest of your attempted mitigation feels very hollow once you accept that fact.

So are you.

Could you possibly disappear back into that box that you go into for a couple of days every time someone destroys another of your 'arguments'?  The adults would be much obliged.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: MoChara on February 28, 2018, 02:07:30 PM
Reading the three witness testimonies am I picking it up wrong that a third man Blane McIlroy is claiming the girl gave him oral sex that night as well? but he is being prosecuted for exposing himself?


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/woman-tried-to-pull-several-members-of-jackson-and-olding-s-group-1.3407447?mode=amp&__twitter_impression=true
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: WT4E on February 28, 2018, 02:10:14 PM
The whatsapp message are cringe! Reminds me off a few videos I've seen of a lad taking the piss out of lads like that on facebook can't think of the name right now!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 02:26:35 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 28, 2018, 01:52:47 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 28, 2018, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: Franko on February 28, 2018, 12:03:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

I'm in exactly the same position.  The evidence from the lads' interviews has been less than convincing.

At this point I haven't a clue. . . there are holes in the lads testimonies and there are holes in the girls testimony so it's coming down to a he said she said for me.

In that case can you convict someone to go to jail? Can you let 2 possible rapists back on the street?

Also as has been stated more than a few times. We're getting 2-3 lines of testimony every 20 minutes so we're missing a lot of what's going on.
That's a bit of a stretch screen. I don't think these lads are a menace to society. Arseholes yes but I would suggest no different to other lads their age playing in high profile teams. Consent may not have been obvious but I'm sure there are no written contracts at 3am when all parties have been drinking. I find it VERY hard to believe that these 3 lads KNOWINGLY raped a girl and then sent the texts they did over the next few days about "roasting" etc. I fully believe that they believe they did nothing wrong. Now that's not to say she didn't feel threatened or under pressure to perform but there is nuance and shades of grey that knobs like Seanie and Syf are unwilling to see.

Thanks buddy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

Excellent post. Be prepared to be called names now.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 02:29:30 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 10:43:07 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 10:12:25 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 09:48:28 AM
Really can't see how Harrison can be convicted. I wouldn't want him organising a cover up story for me if I was charged with an offence.

So he shouldn't be charged because he did it badly? Is that what you're saying?

You cannot even understand a simple sentence. 

Maybe you should give up again [that didn't last too long the last time unfortunately] as you are becoming as hysterical as that other buffoon.

I'm perfectly able to understand sentences that make sense. The evidence above suggests you're not always capable of constructing them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 02:30:27 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

Excellent post. Be prepared to be called names now.

At least AZ is going with the trial, he wasnt warming up the electric chair on the first day.. And still not conviced either way, as are mostly everyone on this thread bar you and the other numpty... Ive a view Tony has a view but I'd probably have a different view were i on the jury or sitting in court every day like Syferus. oh wait he's out milking cows
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: NAG1 on February 28, 2018, 02:32:05 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

Excellent post. Be prepared to be called names now.

If you read back through that paragraph above it contains 4/5 points which are subjective and open to interpretation by anyone on the jury. To me that means the chances of a conviction in this case are becoming slimmer by the day.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 02:36:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 02:30:27 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

Excellent post. Be prepared to be called names now.

At least AZ is going with the trial, he wasnt warming up the electric chair on the first day.. And still not conviced either way, as are mostly everyone on this thread bar you and the other numpty... Ive a view Tony has a view but I'd probably have a different view were i on the jury or sitting in court every day like Syferus. oh wait he's out milking cows

I think you're lazily misrepresenting me. I'd ask you to post supporting evidence but there is none obviously. If you read my post from a few days ago it's very similar to what AZ said. The problem is I challenged you and one or two others on some things you posted. And you're letting yourself get overexcited by our friend from Roscommon, despite my advice.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 02:49:39 PM
The trial has thrown up a number of unwelcome insights into the nocturnal habits of Belfast people in their 20s
I'll never be able to look at the BelTel's "nightlife" photos in the same light again.
Filthy McNasty patrons can get really filthy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 02:49:52 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 02:29:30 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 10:43:07 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 10:12:25 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 09:48:28 AM
Really can't see how Harrison can be convicted. I wouldn't want him organising a cover up story for me if I was charged with an offence.

So he shouldn't be charged because he did it badly? Is that what you're saying?

You cannot even understand a simple sentence. 

Maybe you should give up again [that didn't last too long the last time unfortunately] as you are becoming as hysterical as that other buffoon.

I'm perfectly able to understand sentences that make sense. The evidence above suggests you're not always capable of constructing them.

You clearly cannot even understand the difference in the words 'charged'  and 'convicted'.

Par for the course for you to make some stuff up and call it evidence though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 02:51:47 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 02:49:52 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 02:29:30 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 10:43:07 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 10:12:25 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 09:48:28 AM
Really can't see how Harrison can be convicted. I wouldn't want him organising a cover up story for me if I was charged with an offence.

So he shouldn't be charged because he did it badly? Is that what you're saying?

You cannot even understand a simple sentence. 

Maybe you should give up again [that didn't last too long the last time unfortunately] as you are becoming as hysterical as that other buffoon.

I'm perfectly able to understand sentences that make sense. The evidence above suggests you're not always capable of constructing them.

You clearly cannot even understand the difference in the words 'charged'  and 'convicted'.

Par for the course for you to make some stuff up and call it evidence though.

Go on so. More examples please.

Allow me to correct the above so. I should have said - So he shouldn't be convicted because you wouldn't want him to organise a cover up if you were charged?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 02:52:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.

The woman is a fûcking hero if she helps convict two rapists.

She's a winner in my eyes either way for having the balls to bring this to trial irrespective of the verdict. Far too many women are cowed into silence after experiences like this.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:55:06 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 02:52:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.

The woman is a fûcking hero if she helps convict two rapists.

She's a winner in my eyes either way for having the balls to bring this to trial irrespective of the verdict. Far too many women are cowed into silence after experiences like this.

After what experience?

She has said she was raped. The boys have said she wasnt.

Question (which I doubt you will answer).....if you slept with a woman and you believed all was fair, she said you raped her and you were found innocent - would you say she was a hero?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: NAG1 on February 28, 2018, 02:56:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 02:52:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.

The woman is a fûcking hero if she helps convict two rapists.

She's a winner in my eyes either way for having the balls to bring this to trial irrespective of the verdict. Far too many women are cowed into silence after experiences like this.

Wow your incomprehension of this whole debate really knows no bounds.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 03:01:51 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 02:51:47 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 02:49:52 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 02:29:30 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 10:43:07 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 10:12:25 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 09:48:28 AM
Really can't see how Harrison can be convicted. I wouldn't want him organising a cover up story for me if I was charged with an offence.

So he shouldn't be charged because he did it badly? Is that what you're saying?

You cannot even understand a simple sentence. 

Maybe you should give up again [that didn't last too long the last time unfortunately] as you are becoming as hysterical as that other buffoon.

I'm perfectly able to understand sentences that make sense. The evidence above suggests you're not always capable of constructing them.

You clearly cannot even understand the difference in the words 'charged'  and 'convicted'.

Par for the course for you to make some stuff up and call it evidence though.

Go on so. More examples please.

Allow me to correct the above so. I should have said - So he shouldn't be convicted because you wouldn't want him to organise a cover up if you were charged?

So you corrected one of your original mistakes but You have again inserted a 'because' in a place where I had a fullstop .

Why on earth would you do that...completely change the meaning of my post and then take issue with something I never said.

And why am I even engaging with a fool like you  :-X
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on February 28, 2018, 03:03:49 PM
Quote from: NAG1 on February 28, 2018, 02:56:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 02:52:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.

The woman is a fûcking hero if she helps convict two rapists.

She's a winner in my eyes either way for having the balls to bring this to trial irrespective of the verdict. Far too many women are cowed into silence after experiences like this.

Wow your incomprehension of this whole debate really knows no bounds.

I use to think Syfres was a the Lagan courtroom every day, now Imm starting to think he was in the room that night. Wait a minute maybe he's just an idiot and has made up his mind prior to the case procedures and would hang innocent parties regardless of the verdict.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 28, 2018, 03:10:07 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.
The jury doesn't have to be beyond all doubt just beyond reasonable doubt. I know some of the legal eagles here cannot fathom the difference but it is the difference between a guilty verdict and a not guilty vetdict
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 28, 2018, 03:11:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 02:52:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.

The woman is a fûcking hero if she helps convict two rapists.

She's a winner in my eyes either way for having the balls to bring this to trial irrespective of the verdict. Far too many women are cowed into silence after experiences like this.
NURSE!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 03:12:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 03:01:51 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 02:51:47 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 02:49:52 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 02:29:30 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 10:43:07 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 10:12:25 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on February 28, 2018, 09:48:28 AM
Really can't see how Harrison can be convicted. I wouldn't want him organising a cover up story for me if I was charged with an offence.

So he shouldn't be charged because he did it badly? Is that what you're saying?

You cannot even understand a simple sentence. 

Maybe you should give up again [that didn't last too long the last time unfortunately] as you are becoming as hysterical as that other buffoon.

I'm perfectly able to understand sentences that make sense. The evidence above suggests you're not always capable of constructing them.

You clearly cannot even understand the difference in the words 'charged'  and 'convicted'.

Par for the course for you to make some stuff up and call it evidence though.

Go on so. More examples please.

Allow me to correct the above so. I should have said - So he shouldn't be convicted because you wouldn't want him to organise a cover up if you were charged?

So you corrected one of your original mistakes but You have again inserted a 'because' in a place where I had a fullstop .

Why on earth would you do that...completely change the meaning of my post and then take issue with something I never said.

And why am I even engaging with a fool like you  :-X

So the two sentences were unrelated. This is helping. So here we go:



1. No way should he be convicted of doing a cover up.
2. I wouldn't want him to do a cover up for me if I was charged.

Why would you not want him to organise a cover up for you. Happy to take your medicine or somehow do you think he'd be rubbish at cover ups?

Still not making sense to me.

Looking forward to the list of stuff I've made up. Try to avoid the name calling. You could get a suspension or ban here for that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 28, 2018, 03:12:51 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on February 28, 2018, 03:03:49 PM
Quote from: NAG1 on February 28, 2018, 02:56:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 02:52:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.

The woman is a fûcking hero if she helps convict two rapists.

She's a winner in my eyes either way for having the balls to bring this to trial irrespective of the verdict. Far too many women are cowed into silence after experiences like this.

Wow your incomprehension of this whole debate really knows no bounds.

I use to think Syfres was a the Lagan courtroom every day, now Imm starting to think he was in the room that night. Wait a minute maybe he's just an idiot and has made up his mind prior to the case procedures and would hang innocent parties regardless of the verdict.

Just another benefactor of the Care in the Community approach to village idiots. Give them a lap top and a few sandwiches and they will entertain themselves at less cost to the Exchequer
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 03:13:43 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 28, 2018, 03:10:07 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.
The jury doesn't have to be beyond all doubt just beyond reasonable doubt. I know some of the legal eagles here cannot fathom the difference but it is the difference between a guilty verdict and a not guilty vetdict

Apologies - beyond all reasonable doubt.

Points still stand though
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 28, 2018, 03:18:25 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 02:49:39 PM
The trial has thrown up a number of unwelcome insights into the nocturnal habits of Belfast people in their 20s
I'll never be able to look at the BelTel's "nightlife" photos in the same light again.
Filthy McNasty patrons can get really filthy.

;D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 03:18:50 PM
Every single person who equates a not guilty verdict with the rape victim lying is telling the rest of us how utterly ignorant they are about rape and rape trials.

Does it make those people feel better to ignore the evidence of wrong-doing and blame the woman in that eventuality? What exactly would it be making them feel better about, I wonder?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on February 28, 2018, 03:21:43 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 03:18:50 PM
Every single person who equates a not guilty verdict with the rape victim lying is telling the rest of us how utterly ignorant they are about rape and rape trials.

Does it make those people feel better to ignore the evidence of wrong-doing and blame the woman in that eventuality? What exactly would it be making them feel better about, I wonder?

Don't think anyone on here is equating a not guilty verdict with the complainant lying, that's a fair leap you have made there Syferus
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 28, 2018, 03:22:51 PM
Quote from: NAG1 on February 28, 2018, 02:32:05 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 28, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 11:15:56 AM
Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

Excellent post. Be prepared to be called names now.

If you read back through that paragraph above it contains 4/5 points which are subjective and open to interpretation by anyone on the jury. To me that means the chances of a conviction in this case are becoming slimmer by the day.

Important to remember that, unlike the GAA Board, the jury does not contain the finest legal minds in the land.  They are members of the public - the man on the Clapham Omnibus and all that -, whose views as likely to be coloured (or not) by the contents of texts and WhatsApps as the next man or woman.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 03:23:31 PM
Quote from: Minder on February 28, 2018, 03:21:43 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 03:18:50 PM
Every single person who equates a not guilty verdict with the rape victim lying is telling the rest of us how utterly ignorant they are about rape and rape trials.

Does it make those people feel better to ignore the evidence of wrong-doing and blame the woman in that eventuality? What exactly would it be making them feel better about, I wonder?

Don't think anyone on here is equating a not guilty verdict with the complainant lying, that's a fair leap you have made there Syferus

You'd want to scroll up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on February 28, 2018, 03:24:31 PM
And as for me "giving up" - I won't ever give up making my point. KS is right though.....I should have given up arguing with people who can't have a discussion without resorting to abuse and accusing me of things which are untrue. And not having the decency to retract or apologise.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 28, 2018, 03:30:24 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 03:13:43 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 28, 2018, 03:10:07 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.
The jury doesn't have to be beyond all doubt just beyond reasonable doubt. I know some of the legal eagles here cannot fathom the difference but it is the difference between a guilty verdict and a not guilty vetdict

Apologies - beyond all reasonable doubt.

Points still stand though
Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard. Not beyond "all" reasonable doubt
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 28, 2018, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 03:18:50 PM
Every single person who equates a not guilty verdict with the rape victim lying is telling the rest of us how utterly ignorant they are about rape and rape trials.

Does it make those people feel better to ignore the evidence of wrong-doing and blame the woman in that eventuality? What exactly would it be making them feel better about, I wonder?

Not guilty means that the prosecution has not met the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"
It doesn't mean the accused are innocent.
We are all around long enough to know that
The Scottish "not proven" is a good system
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 28, 2018, 03:34:30 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 28, 2018, 03:10:07 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.
The jury doesn't have to be beyond all doubt just beyond reasonable doubt. I know some of the legal eagles here cannot fathom the difference but it is the difference between a guilty verdict and a not guilty vetdict

But again it won't be 'legal eagles' who are to make the determination on the outcome of this case.  What is the threshold from doubt to reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on February 28, 2018, 03:36:08 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 28, 2018, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 03:18:50 PM
Every single person who equates a not guilty verdict with the rape victim lying is telling the rest of us how utterly ignorant they are about rape and rape trials.

Does it make those people feel better to ignore the evidence of wrong-doing and blame the woman in that eventuality? What exactly would it be making them feel better about, I wonder?

Not guilty means that the prosecution has not met the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"
It doesn't mean the accused are innocent.
We are all around long enough to know that
The Scottish "not proven" is a good system

What about the presumption of innocence though?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 28, 2018, 03:47:28 PM
If Harrison wasn't charged with anything but instead just called as a witness, could his police statements be read out to him in court?



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 28, 2018, 04:04:26 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 28, 2018, 03:36:08 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 28, 2018, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 03:18:50 PM
Every single person who equates a not guilty verdict with the rape victim lying is telling the rest of us how utterly ignorant they are about rape and rape trials.

Does it make those people feel better to ignore the evidence of wrong-doing and blame the woman in that eventuality? What exactly would it be making them feel better about, I wonder?

Not guilty means that the prosecution has not met the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"
It doesn't mean the accused are innocent.
We are all around long enough to know that
The Scottish "not proven" is a good system

What about the presumption of innocence though?
The presumption of innocence is a legal presumption which applies before and during a trial.
We all are aware of cases which have been lost due to a wrong search warrant. Evidence being ruled inadmissible because the accused didn't have access to a solicitor etc but in the world outside the court people will know the truth
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 04:05:51 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 28, 2018, 03:36:08 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 28, 2018, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 03:18:50 PM
Every single person who equates a not guilty verdict with the rape victim lying is telling the rest of us how utterly ignorant they are about rape and rape trials.

Does it make those people feel better to ignore the evidence of wrong-doing and blame the woman in that eventuality? What exactly would it be making them feel better about, I wonder?

Not guilty means that the prosecution has not met the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"
It doesn't mean the accused are innocent.
We are all around long enough to know that
The Scottish "not proven" is a good system

What about the presumption of innocence though?

A legal mechanism that has no weight outside the justice system. No one in the outside world has any responsibility to give anyone the presumption of innocence. Some of the defence team here either are not aware of that fact or conveniently choose to ignore it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 28, 2018, 04:06:43 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 28, 2018, 03:36:08 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 28, 2018, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 03:18:50 PM
Every single person who equates a not guilty verdict with the rape victim lying is telling the rest of us how utterly ignorant they are about rape and rape trials.

Does it make those people feel better to ignore the evidence of wrong-doing and blame the woman in that eventuality? What exactly would it be making them feel better about, I wonder?

Not guilty means that the prosecution has not met the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"
It doesn't mean the accused are innocent.
We are all around long enough to know that
The Scottish "not proven" is a good system

What about the presumption of innocence though?

They are presumed to be innocent as they have not been proven to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. A "not guilty" verdict is not the same as declaring them innocent.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 04:21:24 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:55:06 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 02:52:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.

The woman is a fûcking hero if she helps convict two rapists.

She's a winner in my eyes either way for having the balls to bring this to trial irrespective of the verdict. Far too many women are cowed into silence after experiences like this.

After what experience?

She has said she was raped. The boys have said she wasnt.

Question (which I doubt you will answer).....if you slept with a woman and you believed all was fair, she said you raped her and you were found innocent - would you say she was a hero?

Any chance Syf?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on February 28, 2018, 04:30:19 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 28, 2018, 01:52:56 AM
Quote from: Rois on February 27, 2018, 10:35:18 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 27, 2018, 10:18:12 PM
Recklessness isn't an issue. The jury will be told they can only convict if they are satisfied to the requisite standard that the defendants did not reasonably believe the injured party was not consenting.

OK - though I'm struggling with your explanation (my fault, not yours).   
If I interpret your wording in my own words, the jury can only find guilty if they reasonably believe that Jackson and Olding didn't think she was not saying yes.  That makes no sense to me - sorry!  Is there another less legal way of explaining it?
Reckless is a legal issue and relates to this case. What you wrote Rois was pertinent.
An accused person could be judged reckless in being somewhat aware that the woman was not complaint, but carried on regardless. A legal standard of consent is that the accused genuinely believed he had consent from the woman. The jury might be asked that (about the accuseds'  belief being genuine)  from the Judge in this case.
We already know that merely having a belief that a woman was consenting is not a legal defence

That's wrong. It is a defence provided such a belief is not unreasonable. The legal concept of recklessness is not relevant in a rape case in Northern Ireland.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 28, 2018, 04:49:55 PM
General question.

Irrespective of the verdict, is this the behaviour you would expect from professional provincial rugby players who are meant to be role models for young people?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 04:53:36 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 28, 2018, 04:49:55 PM
General question.

Irrespective of the verdict, is this the behaviour you would expect from professional provincial rugby players who are meant to be role models for young people?

Off course not
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Ethan Tremblay on February 28, 2018, 04:54:58 PM
It shouldn't be expected from anyone with any morale's to be honest. 

"We are all top shaggers", what a fcking knobhead Olding is

Verdict aside Ulster have to give them the boot
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hardy on February 28, 2018, 05:15:07 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 28, 2018, 04:49:55 PM
General question.

Irrespective of the verdict, is this the behaviour you would expect from professional provincial rugby players who are meant to be role models for young people?

At least one of these lads was pictured posing in some sort of black-and-white minstrels imitation, if I remember correctly.

Whether guilty or innocent of rape, my verdict is - knobs.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 05:21:32 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 04:53:36 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 28, 2018, 04:49:55 PM
General question.

Irrespective of the verdict, is this the behaviour you would expect from professional provincial rugby players who are meant to be role models for young people?

Off course not
Snooker has the concept of bringing the game into disrepute. The boys have disgraced the jersey even if they are cleared.
Les Kiss is probably very happy to have left.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on February 28, 2018, 05:26:13 PM
Not company you would want your daughter to associate with
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rois on February 28, 2018, 05:26:49 PM
I've been told the IRFU have some sort of morality clause in the contracts.

Not sure what the terms are, but one would imagine the behaviour that has come out would breach it...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on February 28, 2018, 05:32:12 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 28, 2018, 05:21:32 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 04:53:36 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 28, 2018, 04:49:55 PM
General question.

Irrespective of the verdict, is this the behaviour you would expect from professional provincial rugby players who are meant to be role models for young people?

Off course not
Snooker has the concept of bringing the game into disrepute. The boys have disgraced the jersey even if they are cleared.
Les Kiss is probably very happy to have left.
I know someone fairly closely involved in the inner workings and there has been an issue with this for some time due to the fact that many of the players were/are evangelical Christians and prayer meetings in the changing rooms involving Pienaar, Marshall etc. were common. The presence of "top shaggers" in their midst added to internal friction.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on February 28, 2018, 05:36:04 PM
Quote from: Rois on February 28, 2018, 05:26:49 PM
I've been told the IRFU have some sort of morality clause in the contracts.

Not sure what the terms are, but one would imagine the behaviour that has come out would breach it...

If it doesnt it is a pretty meaningless clause, regardless of verdict
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 28, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 28, 2018, 05:26:13 PM
Not company you would want your daughter to associate with
To paraphrase a different trial "are these the type of people you would wish your servants to associate with?"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on February 28, 2018, 06:02:57 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 28, 2018, 05:26:13 PM
Not company you would want your daughter to associate with
I've no doubt that before all this happened many an Ulsterman would have loved to see the daughter and Paddy Jackson walking up the footpath to the red bricked Edwardian house in leafy South Belfast
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rois on February 28, 2018, 06:36:00 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on February 28, 2018, 06:02:57 PM
Quote from: longballin on February 28, 2018, 05:26:13 PM
Not company you would want your daughter to associate with
I've no doubt that before all this happened many an Ulsterman would have loved to see the daughter and Paddy Jackson walking up the footpath to the red bricked Edwardian house in leafy South Belfast
Ah you're romanticising...try the 15 year old yellowish brick townhouse in a large development beside a petrol station, Joe Brolly's former abode and Paisley's church.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on February 28, 2018, 06:45:16 PM
Quote from: Rois on February 28, 2018, 05:26:49 PM
I've been told the IRFU have some sort of morality clause in the contracts.

Not sure what the terms are, but one would imagine the behaviour that has come out would breach it...

Morality clause hmm. Didnt stop zebo or Murray playing on
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on February 28, 2018, 08:13:37 PM
I would still think there's more than a reasonable doubt - giving apparently consensual oral to Olding according to the only independent witness to the case. With inconsistencies and hazy memories on both sides, the eye-witness testimony is all we really have to go on.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 28, 2018, 09:00:58 PM
I wonder if the "why would/wouldn't she say that" crowd are asking themselves the same questions about the activities of some of the lads - deleting messages, talking about spit roasts etc when they all claim not to have had sex with her etc
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 09:07:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 28, 2018, 09:00:58 PM
I wonder if the "why would/wouldn't she say that" crowd are asking themselves the same questions about the activities of some of the lads - deleting messages, talking about spit roasts etc when they all claim not to have had sex with her etc

Bragging? Kids do that a lot.

Then they've shit themselves once it became obvious that they were going to be charged! Surely they would have constructed a better lie if they had have done something. They are all over the show with those statements...

Too many ifs buts and maybes for me..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on February 28, 2018, 09:07:45 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 28, 2018, 09:00:58 PM
I wonder if the "why would/wouldn't she say that" crowd are asking themselves the same questions about the activities of some of the lads - deleting messages, talking about spit roasts etc when they all claim not to have had sex with her etc

You're assuming that 'crowd' think she is guilty, when they are simply posing a question.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 09:11:26 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 28, 2018, 09:00:58 PM
I wonder if the "why would/wouldn't she say that" crowd are asking themselves the same questions about the activities of some of the lads - deleting messages, talking about spit roasts etc when they all claim not to have had sex with her etc

Nah. Only used as window dressing so as to give an impression of impartiality as they get the digs in at the woman. It comes from the same dirty place that the alt-right movement in the US comes from - a hatred of equality and progressive values. The idea that they are simply "asking questions", as Orior unhelpfully suggested, conveniently ignores how loaded and how one-sided those questions are.

Anyone wondering why most rapes go unreported, let alone unprosecuted, need look no further than this thread.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 09:14:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 09:11:26 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 28, 2018, 09:00:58 PM
I wonder if the "why would/wouldn't she say that" crowd are asking themselves the same questions about the activities of some of the lads - deleting messages, talking about spit roasts etc when they all claim not to have had sex with her etc

Nah. Only used as window dressing so as to give an impression of impartiality as they get the digs in at the woman. It comes from the same dirty place that the alt-right movement in the US comes from - a hatred of equality and progressive values.

Anyone wondering why most rapes go unreported, let alone unprosecuted, need look no further than this thread.

Sure when you finish your law degree you can be the crusader!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on February 28, 2018, 09:31:38 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 09:07:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 28, 2018, 09:00:58 PM
I wonder if the "why would/wouldn't she say that" crowd are asking themselves the same questions about the activities of some of the lads - deleting messages, talking about spit roasts etc when they all claim not to have had sex with her etc

Bragging? Kids do that a lot.

Then they've shit themselves once it became obvious that they were going to be charged! Surely they would have constructed a better lie if they had have done something. They are all over the show with those statements...

Too many ifs buts and maybes for me..

So what, the jock rugby players who could likely get girls as and when they wanted were lying about spit roasting to look cool in front of their friends precisely when a witness saw some spit roasting going on?

Pull the other one ffs.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on February 28, 2018, 09:41:52 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 04:21:24 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:55:06 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 02:52:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.

The woman is a fûcking hero if she helps convict two rapists.

She's a winner in my eyes either way for having the balls to bring this to trial irrespective of the verdict. Far too many women are cowed into silence after experiences like this.

After what experience?

She has said she was raped. The boys have said she wasnt.

Question (which I doubt you will answer).....if you slept with a woman and you believed all was fair, she said you raped her and you were found innocent - would you say she was a hero?

Any chance Syf?

I see you still haven't got your answer Taylor?  Bit like when he was spouting some nonsense the other day about the jury after one member was discharged and then proceeded to ignore any further post when call out on it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Ethan Tremblay on February 28, 2018, 09:56:47 PM
If they say they were only bragging/lying on the whatts app message they will be wiped out in court, prosecution will most likely say how do we know you are not lying now?

The inconsistencies of their stories is unreal and its swaying me to believe they are guilty. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on February 28, 2018, 10:12:09 PM
I believe they had non consensual sexual acts with her but i don't know if the evidence is strong enough to convict. A lot on inconsistency in all the stories. All it needs is a strong dissenter in the jury to sway it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 28, 2018, 09:31:38 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 09:07:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 28, 2018, 09:00:58 PM
I wonder if the "why would/wouldn't she say that" crowd are asking themselves the same questions about the activities of some of the lads - deleting messages, talking about spit roasts etc when they all claim not to have had sex with her etc

Bragging? Kids do that a lot.

Then they've shit themselves once it became obvious that they were going to be charged! Surely they would have constructed a better lie if they had have done something. They are all over the show with those statements...

Too many ifs buts and maybes for me..

So what, the jock rugby players who could likely get girls as and when they wanted were lying about spit roasting to look cool in front of their friends precisely when a witness saw some spit roasting going on?

Pull the other one ffs.

Everyone is guessing, as are you.. Olding it seems was the only one that got off.. the others were,  it seems fumbling around..

So you think that rapists generally WhatsApp each other after a rape? There are s lot of things that don't add up on both sides, I couldn't and can't decide on this..

I know plenty guys when I was out back in the day that would have been very successful with the girls every weekend and talking about it would have been the norm. And it would have been the norm to exaggerate some stories too, especially when they have had a few
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 10:35:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 28, 2018, 09:31:38 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 09:07:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 28, 2018, 09:00:58 PM
I wonder if the "why would/wouldn't she say that" crowd are asking themselves the same questions about the activities of some of the lads - deleting messages, talking about spit roasts etc when they all claim not to have had sex with her etc

Bragging? Kids do that a lot.

Then they've shit themselves once it became obvious that they were going to be charged! Surely they would have constructed a better lie if they had have done something. They are all over the show with those statements...

Too many ifs buts and maybes for me..

So what, the jock rugby players who could likely get girls as and when they wanted were lying about spit roasting to look cool in front of their friends precisely when a witness saw some spit roasting going on?

Pull the other one ffs.

Everyone is guessing, as are you.. Olding it seems was the only one that got off.. the others were,  it seems fumbling around..

So you think that rapists generally WhatsApp each other after a rape? There are s lot of things that don't add up on both sides, I couldn't and can't decide on this..

I know plenty guys when I was out back in the day that would have been very successful with the girls every weekend and talking about it would have been the norm. And it would have been the norm to exaggerate some stories too, especially when they have had a few

Have you reached Sydney with that hole you've dug yourself yet?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on February 28, 2018, 10:57:34 PM
Roscommon just, bit of a daft place with lots of people claiming to be experts in British legal systems
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on February 28, 2018, 11:00:43 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:55:06 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 02:52:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.

The woman is a fûcking hero if she helps convict two rapists.

She's a winner in my eyes either way for having the balls to bring this to trial irrespective of the verdict. Far too many women are cowed into silence after experiences like this.

After what experience?

She has said she was raped. The boys have said she wasnt.

Question (which I doubt you will answer).....if you slept with a woman and you believed all was fair, she said you raped her and you were found innocent - would you say she was a hero?

You were asked a very simple yes or no question Syf... any word of an answer??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on February 28, 2018, 11:20:10 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 28, 2018, 11:00:43 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:55:06 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 02:52:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.

The woman is a fûcking hero if she helps convict two rapists.

She's a winner in my eyes either way for having the balls to bring this to trial irrespective of the verdict. Far too many women are cowed into silence after experiences like this.

After what experience?

She has said she was raped. The boys have said she wasnt.

Question (which I doubt you will answer).....if you slept with a woman and you believed all was fair, she said you raped her and you were found innocent - would you say she was a hero?

You were asked a very simple yes or no question Syf... any word of an answer??
Syf couldn't dignify that question with a reply.
That's a straw mans argument from Taylor, even Syf could spot that one from a km away.
You Nordies must do better.
Never mind visualising Syf sleeping with a woman.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on February 28, 2018, 11:39:35 PM
Why did the PSNI contact Les Kiss in the aftermath of the complaint? What did he have to do with it??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on March 01, 2018, 12:15:14 AM
Quote from: AQMP on February 28, 2018, 11:39:35 PM
Why did the PSNI contact Les Kiss in the aftermath of the complaint? What did he have to do with it??

A very f**king strange one that. Bizzare move on their part.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on March 01, 2018, 12:20:40 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 28, 2018, 04:30:19 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 28, 2018, 01:52:56 AM
Quote from: Rois on February 27, 2018, 10:35:18 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 27, 2018, 10:18:12 PM
Recklessness isn't an issue. The jury will be told they can only convict if they are satisfied to the requisite standard that the defendants did not reasonably believe the injured party was not consenting.

OK - though I'm struggling with your explanation (my fault, not yours).   
If I interpret your wording in my own words, the jury can only find guilty if they reasonably believe that Jackson and Olding didn't think she was not saying yes.  That makes no sense to me - sorry!  Is there another less legal way of explaining it?
Reckless is a legal issue and relates to this case. What you wrote Rois was pertinent.
An accused person could be judged reckless in being somewhat aware that the woman was not complaint, but carried on regardless. A legal standard of consent is that the accused genuinely believed he had consent from the woman. The jury might be asked that (about the accuseds'  belief being genuine)  from the Judge in this case.
We already know that merely having a belief that a woman was consenting is not a legal defence

That's wrong. It is a defence provided such a belief is not unreasonable.
It's not wrong. my wording is very accurate.
Merely having a belief that consent was given is not a defence, it has to be deemed a reasonable belief that consent was given,  in order to be regarded as a genuine defence.
There is a huge difference between a defendant having a belief it was consensual  and a defendant whose belief is deemed reasonable. It is the difference between still being an accused defending a charge to one who has been proven innocent.

QuoteThe legal concept of recklessness is not relevant in a rape case in Northern Ireland.

The word reckless was in the UK sexual offences act, but dropped out in 2003 for a wider criteria
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 12:55:49 AM
Act
Quote from: Main Street on March 01, 2018, 12:20:40 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 28, 2018, 04:30:19 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 28, 2018, 01:52:56 AM
Quote from: Rois on February 27, 2018, 10:35:18 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on February 27, 2018, 10:18:12 PM
Recklessness isn't an issue. The jury will be told they can only convict if they are satisfied to the requisite standard that the defendants did not reasonably believe the injured party was not consenting.

OK - though I'm struggling with your explanation (my fault, not yours).   
If I interpret your wording in my own words, the jury can only find guilty if they reasonably believe that Jackson and Olding didn't think she was not saying yes.  That makes no sense to me - sorry!  Is there another less legal way of explaining it?
Reckless is a legal issue and relates to this case. What you wrote Rois was pertinent.
An accused person could be judged reckless in being somewhat aware that the woman was not complaint, but carried on regardless. A legal standard of consent is that the accused genuinely believed he had consent from the woman. The jury might be asked that (about the accuseds'  belief being genuine)  from the Judge in this case.
We already know that merely having a belief that a woman was consenting is not a legal defence

That's wrong. It is a defence provided such a belief is not unreasonable.
It's not wrong. my wording is very accurate.
Merely having a belief that consent was given is not a defence, it has to be deemed a reasonable belief that consent was given,  in order to be regarded as a genuine defence.
There is a huge difference between a defendant having a belief it was consensual  and a defendant whose belief is deemed reasonable. It is the difference between still being an accused defending a charge to one who has been proven innocent.

QuoteThe legal concept of recklessness is not relevant in a rape case in Northern Ireland.

The word reckless was in the UK sexual offences act, but dropped out in 2003 for a wider criteria


I'm sorry but you are wrong. The offence of rape in Northern Ireland can not be committed recklessly. In other jurisdictions it can. The legal concept of recklessness is therefore irrelevant to this case. You can be reckless as to consent and it still not be rape. For example if you believe but are not 100% sure you have consent but you carry on regardless. That would be legally reckless but unless your believe was not reasonable you would not be guilty of rape.

As for your other point. Belief that consent was given is a defence provided such a belief is not unreasonable. The defendant does not need to prove their belief was reasonable even on the balance of probabilities, the prosecution must prove that the defendants did not have a reasonable belief. In the same way is a defence to say there was no penetration. You don't need to prove there was no penetration the prosecution must prove to the requisite standard that there was penetration.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 01, 2018, 09:07:07 AM
When did the bleeding start? Was she bleeding by the time Harrison ordered the taxi?

Or did she just start bleeding because she felt like it? It seems out of line with the evidence of the defendants.

"*Olding said: "I didn't penetrate her vagina with my penis at any point" and he told detectives he did not see Jackson penetrate the woman.

--------

When asked how he felt about this, McIlroy answered: "I thought she just had regrets." He added: "She seemed fine. She wasn't upset. She said, 'Oh my God, this isn't like me' but she wasn't upset or crying about it."

The jury also heard how McIlroy told officers the complainant had tried to kiss him earlier in the evening, but that he had not been interested because he was talking to another woman at the party in Jackson's south Belfast home.

In the course of his interview, McIlroy said he had felt "shocked" when Harrison called to tell him Jackson and Olding had been taken in for questioning."
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 09:08:24 AM
Quote from: Main Street on February 28, 2018, 11:20:10 PM
Quote from: screenexile on February 28, 2018, 11:00:43 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:55:06 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 28, 2018, 02:52:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on February 28, 2018, 02:46:26 PM
After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.

The woman is a fûcking hero if she helps convict two rapists.

She's a winner in my eyes either way for having the balls to bring this to trial irrespective of the verdict. Far too many women are cowed into silence after experiences like this.

After what experience?

She has said she was raped. The boys have said she wasnt.

Question (which I doubt you will answer).....if you slept with a woman and you believed all was fair, she said you raped her and you were found innocent - would you say she was a hero?

You were asked a very simple yes or no question Syf... any word of an answer??
Syf couldn't dignify that question with a reply.
That's a straw mans argument from Taylor, even Syf could spot that one from a km away.
You Nordies must do better.
Never mind visualising Syf sleeping with a woman.

Ah the old strawman shite that people come out with when they wont answer a question  ::)

Looks like Syf & yerself missed a few days while completing the law degree given you have both been caught out talking shite/making up laws/rules  :-*
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 11:22:46 AM
So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 11:24:49 AM
Quote from: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 11:22:46 AM
So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Was it not the case that the PPS didnt want to take on the case?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 11:41:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 11:24:49 AM
Quote from: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 11:22:46 AM
So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Was it not the case that the PPS didnt want to take on the case?

Not sure but the investigating officer seems to have been annihilated up there!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 12:18:34 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 11:22:46 AM
So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Yeah, the PSNI not coming out of this too well.  Was it ever thus?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 12:19:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 11:24:49 AM
Quote from: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 11:22:46 AM
So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Was it not the case that the PPS didnt want to take on the case?

Where did you hear that MR2??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 12:44:59 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 12:19:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 11:24:49 AM
Quote from: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 11:22:46 AM
So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Was it not the case that the PPS didnt want to take on the case?

Where did you hear that MR2??

Same place he heard there was a video doing the rounds. For a man bleating about evidence he sure has a lacklustre vetting process of his own.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 12:56:46 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 12:19:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 11:24:49 AM
Quote from: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 11:22:46 AM
So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Was it not the case that the PPS didnt want to take on the case?


Where did you hear that MR2??

Few pages ago, someone had it up, but I also heard it from a rugby source who knows a couple of the lads from development squads he worked in.. Now to be fair to the rugby guy he thinks there was some wrong doing here
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 12:59:15 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 25, 2018, 09:27:49 AM
Quote from: themac_23 on February 25, 2018, 09:00:56 AM
Quick question, would the PPS have taken this case to court if it wasn't for the high profiles of the accused? Just asking because it seems that way.

PPs originally decided not to run the case.

Family instructed Counsel to challenge this and he convinced PPS to throw it before a jury and see what would happen as opposed to presume what would happen. He is on a fair wedge for this

See above
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 01:01:49 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 12:44:59 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 12:19:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 11:24:49 AM
Quote from: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 11:22:46 AM
So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Was it not the case that the PPS didnt want to take on the case?

Where did you hear that MR2??

Same place he heard there was a video doing the rounds. For a man bleating about evidence he sure has a lacklustre vetting process of his own.

Evidence? while you are on the topic of evidence could i see some evidence of your legal background please? Youve been shown up a few times but shy away for a while, then there was another muppet shown up for his post saying he knew it all but again when challenged he went missing, must be the weather
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on March 01, 2018, 01:06:34 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 12:56:46 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 12:19:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 11:24:49 AM
Quote from: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 11:22:46 AM
So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Was it not the case that the PPS didnt want to take on the case?


Where did you hear that MR2??

Few pages ago, someone had it up, but I also heard it from a rugby source who knows a couple of the lads from development squads he worked in.. Now to be fair to the rugby guy he thinks there was some wrong doing here

That is the case - it was decided not to proceed due to medical evidence.

Also I see the conclusions jumped to re the clothing have been shown to be rubbish - it would serve people to do well to read what is reported - not being seized by the police doesn't mean they couldn't find it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:14:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 12:59:15 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 25, 2018, 09:27:49 AM
Quote from: themac_23 on February 25, 2018, 09:00:56 AM
Quick question, would the PPS have taken this case to court if it wasn't for the high profiles of the accused? Just asking because it seems that way.

PPs originally decided not to run the case.

Family instructed Counsel to challenge this and he convinced PPS to throw it before a jury and see what would happen as opposed to presume what would happen. He is on a fair wedge for this

See above

Really??  I find that difficult to believe - even in NI.  Has this been reported??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:18:22 PM
From the Belfast Telegraph:

"The jury was also told that McIlroy was a regular visitor to Jackson's home, staying two or three times a week, and usually sharing his "big" bed"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 01:19:04 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:14:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 12:59:15 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 25, 2018, 09:27:49 AM
Quote from: themac_23 on February 25, 2018, 09:00:56 AM
Quick question, would the PPS have taken this case to court if it wasn't for the high profiles of the accused? Just asking because it seems that way.

PPs originally decided not to run the case.

Family instructed Counsel to challenge this and he convinced PPS to throw it before a jury and see what would happen as opposed to presume what would happen. He is on a fair wedge for this

See above

Really??  I find that difficult to believe - even in NI.  Has this been reported??

World exclusive for GAA Board.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 01:23:38 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:18:22 PM
From the Belfast Telegraph:

"The jury was also told that McIlroy was a regular visitor to Jackson's home, staying two or three times a week, and usually sharing his "big" bed"

Not uncommon, Bert and Ernie, morcombe and Wise, family from Willywonka film
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Really?  So if Syferus said on a post here that he had experience or qualifications in the legal profession you'd believe him? You'd send someone to prison on the texts they sent? Did they mention they raped someone? Certainly they should go to jail for saying top shaggers
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 01, 2018, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Really?  So if Syferus said on a post here that he had experience or qualifications in the legal profession you'd believe him? You'd send someone to prison on the texts they sent? Did they mention they raped someone? Certainly they should go to jail for saying top shaggers

In a case like this, it's witness statements, medical evidence, and essentially one person's word versus anothers. At this stage the medical and witness statements would seem to be inconclusive. So if it comes down to who's more believable, then the text messages and police statements don't look good for the accused.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on March 01, 2018, 01:38:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Really?  So if Syferus said on a post here that he had experience or qualifications in the legal profession you'd believe him? You'd send someone to prison on the texts they sent? Did they mention they raped someone? Certainly they should go to jail for saying top shaggers

what way are you leaning MR?
Personally I have no idea what happened and have changed my mind that often Im just hoping now that justice is done
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 01, 2018, 01:40:22 PM
The PSNI are having a nightmare with what's been out in court over the past few days. Sounds like they didn't take this serious at all - 17 days to collect Olding's clothes from the night? Obviously the fella would have washed them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:46:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Really?  So if Syferus said on a post here that he had experience or qualifications in the legal profession you'd believe him? You'd send someone to prison on the texts they sent? Did they mention they raped someone? Certainly they should go to jail for saying top shaggers

If Syferus said during a trial or interview with the police that he had a legal qualification and couldn't back that up I'd certainly not believe him. 

The point I'm making is that if it plays with the jury the way it has played with almost everyone I've spoken to in the past 48 hrs, then they could be in trouble.  As I've said before the jury is not made up of QCs.  It's made up of people who work in shops and offices etc in other words they're ordinary people with their own prejudices.

Frankly, does anyone believe that they met up in a coffee shop to discuss the Ireland rugby tour? If not, neither will the jury.  If all the deleted text messages and WhatsApps said was "we are top shaggers" then we wouldn't be on page whatever (edit: 97) on this thread as there wouldn't have been a trial.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 01, 2018, 01:51:54 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:46:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Really?  So if Syferus said on a post here that he had experience or qualifications in the legal profession you'd believe him? You'd send someone to prison on the texts they sent? Did they mention they raped someone? Certainly they should go to jail for saying top shaggers

If Syferus said during a trial or interview with the police that he had a legal qualification and couldn't back that up I'd certainly not believe him. 

The point I'm making is that if it plays with the jury the way it has played with almost everyone I've spoken to in the past 48 hrs, then they could be in trouble.  As I've said before the jury is not made up of QCs.  It's made up of people who work in shops and offices etc in other words they're ordinary people with their own prejudices.

Frankly, does anyone believe that they met up in a coffee shop to discuss the Ireland rugby tour? If not, neither will the jury.  If all the deleted text messages and WhatsApps said was "we are top shaggers" then we wouldn't be on page whatever on this thread as there wouldn't have been a trial.
If the jury think they are lying the game may be up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on March 01, 2018, 01:55:15 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 01, 2018, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Really?  So if Syferus said on a post here that he had experience or qualifications in the legal profession you'd believe him? You'd send someone to prison on the texts they sent? Did they mention they raped someone? Certainly they should go to jail for saying top shaggers

In a case like this, it's witness statements, medical evidence, and essentially one person's word versus anothers. At this stage the medical and witness statements would seem to be inconclusive. So if it comes down to who's more believable, then the text messages and police statements don't look good for the accused.

Whoever is more believable is one thing,  but beyond reasonable doubt is a much higher bar.    You'd find it tough sending someone down for 10 years just because on balance the girl's story sounds a bit more believable. 

I think PJ and SO will get off but the other 2 being on lesser charges could be the fall guys. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 01:59:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:02:10 PM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on March 01, 2018, 01:55:15 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 01, 2018, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Really?  So if Syferus said on a post here that he had experience or qualifications in the legal profession you'd believe him? You'd send someone to prison on the texts they sent? Did they mention they raped someone? Certainly they should go to jail for saying top shaggers

In a case like this, it's witness statements, medical evidence, and essentially one person's word versus anothers. At this stage the medical and witness statements would seem to be inconclusive. So if it comes down to who's more believable, then the text messages and police statements don't look good for the accused.

Whoever is more believable is one thing,  but beyond reasonable doubt is a much higher bar.    You'd find it tough sending someone down for 10 years just because on balance the girl's story sounds a bit more believable. 

I think PJ and SO will get off but the other 2 being on lesser charges could be the fall guys.

Harrison definitely looks like he's on a sticky wicket.  It might persuade him the take the stand?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:06:42 PM
Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on March 01, 2018, 02:10:18 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:06:42 PM
Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.

That would be my take on it as well.

Sure they couldn't agree on who was doing what in their police statements taken later.
If they had honestly thought that they'd done wrong that night I'd have expected their stories all to align and be as tight as a drum.
In the same breath I don't think they gave the girl a second thought, she was just a piece of meat and that's not good.
Whether that's rape or not I don't know.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 02:11:19 PM
Your theory immediately falls down because it assumes societal norms applying to likely rapists. If you're capable of rape you're more than capable of being callous and casual about it after the fact.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 01:59:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on March 01, 2018, 02:14:25 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 02:11:19 PM
Your theory immediately falls down because it assumes societal norms applying to likely rapists. If you're capable of rape you're more than capable of being callous and casual about it after the fact.

Yawn.  More horse manure.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:16:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 02:11:19 PM
Your theory immediately falls down because it assumes societal norms applying to likely rapists. If you're capable of rape you're more than capable of being callous and casual about it after the fact.

Well that's possibly true but I go back to the jury having to look at all the surrounding circumstances and having to be firmly convinced that the defendants did not reasonably believe the girl consented. Moreover the jury will have to do it on the basis of societal norms and not on the basis that the defendants are likely rapists who don't conform to such norms.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 02:18:14 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:46:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Really?  So if Syferus said on a post here that he had experience or qualifications in the legal profession you'd believe him? You'd send someone to prison on the texts they sent? Did they mention they raped someone? Certainly they should go to jail for saying top shaggers

If Syferus said during a trial or interview with the police that he had a legal qualification and couldn't back that up I'd certainly not believe him. 

The point I'm making is that if it plays with the jury the way it has played with almost everyone I've spoken to in the past 48 hrs, then they could be in trouble.  As I've said before the jury is not made up of QCs.  It's made up of people who work in shops and offices etc in other words they're ordinary people with their own prejudices.

Frankly, does anyone believe that they met up in a coffee shop to discuss the Ireland rugby tour? If not, neither will the jury.  If all the deleted text messages and WhatsApps said was "we are top shaggers" then we wouldn't be on page whatever (edit: 97) on this thread as there wouldn't have been a trial.

I said the other day it doesnt look good, as as you say most people and even my brother in law whos a lawyer has said its not looking good and he was wondering at the start why it was even taken to court.. deleting messages could be the nail in the coffin though, also heard other stuff which may be bullshit but if true they hopefully will get put away

But I'm still on the fence as to whether they did intentionally rape someone or was this a case of something started and in the end it wasnt what it was meant to be and the drink and stupidity of it all bring itself to this point! too many  inconsistencies for me to be 100% sure
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 02:20:24 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 01:59:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I didn't see that this happened, did these texts appear on the others' phones and if so what was in them...sorry i must have completely missed this being reported...was it mentioned on here?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 02:20:46 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:16:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 02:11:19 PM
Your theory immediately falls down because it assumes societal norms applying to likely rapists. If you're capable of rape you're more than capable of being callous and casual about it after the fact.

Well that's possibly true but I go back to the jury having to look at all the surrounding circumstances and having to be firmly convinced that the defendants did not reasonably believe the girl consented. Moreover the jury will have to do it on the basis of societal norms and not on the basis that the defendants are likely rapists who don't conform to such norms.

If the prosecution does their jobs well the jury will beleive them to be rapists no matter what instruction is given to them.

The texts hurt more than they help the image of the likely rapists in that regard because they show a level of callousness that their more public-facing interviews with police do not.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 02:21:33 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on March 01, 2018, 01:38:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Really?  So if Syferus said on a post here that he had experience or qualifications in the legal profession you'd believe him? You'd send someone to prison on the texts they sent? Did they mention they raped someone? Certainly they should go to jail for saying top shaggers

what way are you leaning MR?
Personally I have no idea what happened and have changed my mind that often Im just hoping now that justice is done

On the fence for me.. I thought at the start it was regret rather than rape, now its more a case of going over a line that they thought was ok, but in hindsight and without drink being taken they probably would have stopped a long time before it.. problem is if they have been giving it large most weekends then this is the norm to them and they thought this was another one of those nights!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 01:59:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I was guessing that's why he was charged but wasn't sure. It was either that or police believed he had given a deliberately false account of the actions of others in order to help their case. I hadn't seen either reported though.

From a technical point of view I would imagine police either saw the WhatsApp messages originally or they were still present on someone else's phone? Otherwise how could they prove messages were deleted?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:24:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 02:18:14 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:46:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Really?  So if Syferus said on a post here that he had experience or qualifications in the legal profession you'd believe him? You'd send someone to prison on the texts they sent? Did they mention they raped someone? Certainly they should go to jail for saying top shaggers

If Syferus said during a trial or interview with the police that he had a legal qualification and couldn't back that up I'd certainly not believe him. 

The point I'm making is that if it plays with the jury the way it has played with almost everyone I've spoken to in the past 48 hrs, then they could be in trouble.  As I've said before the jury is not made up of QCs.  It's made up of people who work in shops and offices etc in other words they're ordinary people with their own prejudices.

Frankly, does anyone believe that they met up in a coffee shop to discuss the Ireland rugby tour? If not, neither will the jury.  If all the deleted text messages and WhatsApps said was "we are top shaggers" then we wouldn't be on page whatever (edit: 97) on this thread as there wouldn't have been a trial.

I said the other day it doesnt look good, as as you say most people and even my brother in law whos a lawyer has said its not looking good and he was wondering at the start why it was even taken to court.. deleting messages could be the nail in the coffin though, also heard other stuff which may be bullshit but if true they hopefully will get put away

But I'm still on the fence as to whether they did intentionally rape someone or was this a case of something started and in the end it wasnt what it was meant to be and the drink and stupidity of it all bring itself to this point! too many  inconsistencies for me to be 100% sure

So am I.  I'm trying to put myself in the position of a juror.  My experience of being on a jury was eye opening!  It was an assault case and the jury foreman opened deliberation with (paraphrase) "I suppose if he's up in court he must be guilty".

A couple of weeks ago I was 55/45 PJ and SO would be acquitted.  I have to admit I'm now 55/45 they'll be convicted. 

Who knows exactly what went on in that room, that night?  I certainly don't.

One thing's for sure I doubt either will ever throw or kick a rugby ball in anger again.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 01, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:06:42 PM
Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.

That was my initial thoughts as well. I think Harrison refers to the complainant saying it was not consensual but I imagine the defence will try to paint the picture that it was regret after the fact as per Olding's statement. Its a complete mess and I have no idea what way this  should or will go.

I do think it actually strengthens the case for anonymity for all participants. If the defendants had not been named there would be limited interest in the case. In the scenario where the guys are found not guilty that's only fair. But I also think it would help the other party as there would be limited media interest in who the complainant was. As it stands now I think it is likely that her name would  get out which helps no-one. And if it a guilty verdict, I would imagine its easier to maintain that anonymity for her (should she decide) because there has not been such media attention. I know there is an argument that other victims/witnesses  are more likely to come forward if the accused is named etc but on balance i think it would be better to have all this out of the media.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:29:47 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 01:59:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I was guessing that's why he was charged but wasn't sure. It was either that or police believed he had given a deliberately false account of the actions of others in order to help their case. I hadn't seen either reported though.

From a technical point of view I would imagine police either saw the WhatsApp messages originally or they were still present on someone else's phone? Otherwise how could they prove messages were deleted?

I'm not sure, but Hedworth/Hepworth?? the prosecution QC told the jury that though they had the substance of the texts and WhatsApps they couldn't be sure of the chronology because they'd been deleted.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 01, 2018, 02:30:39 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:06:42 PM
Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.
Don't stop making a decision on guilt or not guilty because you haven't seen all the evidence.
There is loads on this site who have decided that the 4  are guilty before seeing any evidence
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Sweeper 123 on March 01, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
I just dont know how some people on here can say these guys are guilty, we dont know and will never know as we werent there; They may be but....

Rape is terrible but so is lying - and im not saying she is lying, but she wouldnt be the first; Just imagine for one minute she is lying.....u cant deny she would have good cause to lie ..

Just a different perspective, i dont and will never know what happened so wont come to conclussions

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:31:46 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 01, 2018, 02:30:39 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:06:42 PM
Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.
Don't stop making a decision on guilt or not guilty because you haven't seen all the evidence.
There is loads on this site who have decided that the 4  are guilty before seeing any evidence

And as many who think there's reasonable doubt?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 02:34:10 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 01, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:06:42 PM
Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.

That was my initial thoughts as well. I think Harrison refers to the complainant saying it was not consensual but I imagine the defence will try to paint the picture that it was regret after the fact as per Olding's statement. Its a complete mess and I have no idea what way this  should or will go.

I do think it actually strengthens the case for anonymity for all participants. If the defendants had not been named there would be limited interest in the case. In the scenario where the guys are found not guilty that's only fair. But I also think it would help the other party as there would be limited media interest in who the complainant was. As it stands now I think it is likely that her name would  get out which helps no-one. And if it a guilty verdict, I would imagine its easier to maintain that anonymity for her (should she decide) because there has not been such media attention. I know there is an argument that other victims/witnesses  are more likely to come forward if the accused is named etc but on balance i think it would be better to have all this out of the media.

When there is a systematic and societal bias against rape victims even coming forward I have little issue with names being made public once charged. If the police and the state didn't beleive a rape happened it wouldn't reach that point to begin with. It again goes without saying that a not guilty verdict does not equal innocence or a right to pick up their lives as if nothing occurred.

I am amused by the hand wringing in this thread over them being named despite it being common in many other types of cases. Do you realise the bias you're propigating here?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:29:47 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 01:59:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I was guessing that's why he was charged but wasn't sure. It was either that or police believed he had given a deliberately false account of the actions of others in order to help their case. I hadn't seen either reported though.

From a technical point of view I would imagine police either saw the WhatsApp messages originally or they were still present on someone else's phone? Otherwise how could they prove messages were deleted?

I'm not sure, but Hedworth/Hepworth?? the prosecution QC told the jury that though they had the substance of the texts and WhatsApps they couldn't be sure of the chronology because they'd been deleted.

Can you [or indeed anyone] remember when this happened as I cannot recollect deleted texts being mentioned before.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnneycool on March 01, 2018, 02:38:08 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 02:11:19 PM
Your theory immediately falls down because it assumes societal norms applying to likely rapists. If you're capable of rape you're more than capable of being callous and casual about it after the fact.

I'll bow to your greater knowledge of the criminal mind.

You must be a psychologist as well as a legal expert. How do you get time to post on here?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 01, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
I just dont know how some people on here can say these guys are guilty, we dont know and will never know as we werent there; They may be but....

Rape is terrible but so is lying - and im not saying she is lying, but she wouldnt be the first; Just imagine for one minute she is lying.....u cant deny she would have good cause to lie ..

Just a different perspective, i dont and will never know what happened so wont come to conclussions

Where do you start with this?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 02:45:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 02:34:10 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 01, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:06:42 PM
Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.

That was my initial thoughts as well. I think Harrison refers to the complainant saying it was not consensual but I imagine the defence will try to paint the picture that it was regret after the fact as per Olding's statement. Its a complete mess and I have no idea what way this  should or will go.

I do think it actually strengthens the case for anonymity for all participants. If the defendants had not been named there would be limited interest in the case. In the scenario where the guys are found not guilty that's only fair. But I also think it would help the other party as there would be limited media interest in who the complainant was. As it stands now I think it is likely that her name would  get out which helps no-one. And if it a guilty verdict, I would imagine its easier to maintain that anonymity for her (should she decide) because there has not been such media attention. I know there is an argument that other victims/witnesses  are more likely to come forward if the accused is named etc but on balance i think it would be better to have all this out of the media.

When there is a systematic and societal bias against rape victims even coming forward I have little issue with names being made public once charged. If the police and the state didn't beleive a rape happened it wouldn't reach that point to begin with. It again goes without saying that a not guilty verdict does not equal innocence or a right to pick up their lives as if nothing occurred.

I am amused by the hand wringing in this thread over them being named despite it being common in many other types of cases. Do you realise the bias you're propigating here?

Beaut!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:48:04 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:29:47 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 01:59:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I was guessing that's why he was charged but wasn't sure. It was either that or police believed he had given a deliberately false account of the actions of others in order to help their case. I hadn't seen either reported though.

From a technical point of view I would imagine police either saw the WhatsApp messages originally or they were still present on someone else's phone? Otherwise how could they prove messages were deleted?

I'm not sure, but Hedworth/Hepworth?? the prosecution QC told the jury that though they had the substance of the texts and WhatsApps they couldn't be sure of the chronology because they'd been deleted.

Can you [or indeed anyone] remember when this happened as I cannot recollect deleted texts being mentioned before.

Just to be accurate Newstalk reported yesterday "The court heard a series of texts between Rory Harrison and Blane McIlroy were deleted".  Didn't mention Jackson or Olding deleting texts.  Harrison is also charged with withholding information.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:49:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 01, 2018, 01:40:22 PM
The PSNI are having a nightmare with what's been out in court over the past few days. Sounds like they didn't take this serious at all - 17 days to collect Olding's clothes from the night? Obviously the fella would have washed them.

You've got it wrong.

It was McIlroy's clothes....McIlroy who the alleged victim said never touched her. Hence understandable the police were less interested in his clothing.

They didn't collect Olding's clothes because they felt there was no need to......he had admitted ejaculating in his statement.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:50:08 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:48:04 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:29:47 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 01:59:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I was guessing that's why he was charged but wasn't sure. It was either that or police believed he had given a deliberately false account of the actions of others in order to help their case. I hadn't seen either reported though.

From a technical point of view I would imagine police either saw the WhatsApp messages originally or they were still present on someone else's phone? Otherwise how could they prove messages were deleted?

I'm not sure, but Hedworth/Hepworth?? the prosecution QC told the jury that though they had the substance of the texts and WhatsApps they couldn't be sure of the chronology because they'd been deleted.

Can you [or indeed anyone] remember when this happened as I cannot recollect deleted texts being mentioned before.

Just to be accurate Newstalk reported yesterday "The court heard a series of texts between Rory Harrison and Blane McIlroy were deleted".  Didn't mention Jackson or Olding deleting texts.  Harrison is also charged with withholding information.

The reports on news bulletins have been chronically bad. Seems no logic to the stuff they cherry pick and decide to include.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on March 01, 2018, 02:51:43 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 02:34:10 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 01, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:06:42 PM
Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.

That was my initial thoughts as well. I think Harrison refers to the complainant saying it was not consensual but I imagine the defence will try to paint the picture that it was regret after the fact as per Olding's statement. Its a complete mess and I have no idea what way this  should or will go.

I do think it actually strengthens the case for anonymity for all participants. If the defendants had not been named there would be limited interest in the case. In the scenario where the guys are found not guilty that's only fair. But I also think it would help the other party as there would be limited media interest in who the complainant was. As it stands now I think it is likely that her name would  get out which helps no-one. And if it a guilty verdict, I would imagine its easier to maintain that anonymity for her (should she decide) because there has not been such media attention. I know there is an argument that other victims/witnesses  are more likely to come forward if the accused is named etc but on balance i think it would be better to have all this out of the media.

When there is a systematic and societal bias against rape victims even coming forward I have little issue with names being made public once charged. If the police and the state didn't beleive a rape happened it wouldn't reach that point to begin with. It again goes without saying that a not guilty verdict does not equal innocence or a right to pick up their lives as if nothing occurred.

I am amused by the hand wringing in this thread over them being named despite it being common in many other types of cases. Do you realise the bias you're propigating here?

You see this is where you let yourself down and expose the fact that you actually couldn't give a flying fcuk about the alleged victim here.  Anyone with half a brain would know that this case wouldn't have been given a second glance by the media if the defendants hadn't been such high profile people.

That being the case, this girl would have been spared the torture of having read and listen to the most intimate discussions about her being conducted on the front page of every newspaper and being the headline story in every news bulletin.  This trial and the associated reporting also has to have planted a seed of doubt into the mind of anyone thinking of coming forward in similar circumstances.

Of course, the defendants would have also been spared being vilified by every halfwit attention seeker in the street before being convicted of any wrongdoing.  And we all know someone in that bracket.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 02:52:00 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 01, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
I just dont know how some people on here can say these guys are guilty, we dont know and will never know as we werent there; They may be but....

Rape is terrible but so is lying - and im not saying she is lying, but she wouldnt be the first; Just imagine for one minute she is lying.....u cant deny she would have good cause to lie ..

Just a different perspective, i dont and will never know what happened so wont come to conclussions

Where do you start with this?

Wherever you wish MS.

Sweeper is just asking a question and offering a view.........assume he will be shot to pieces very soon by our resident legal experts, qualified psychologists etc
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Maiden1 on March 01, 2018, 02:54:42 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 01:59:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I was guessing that's why he was charged but wasn't sure. It was either that or police believed he had given a deliberately false account of the actions of others in order to help their case. I hadn't seen either reported though.

From a technical point of view I would imagine police either saw the WhatsApp messages originally or they were still present on someone else's phone? Otherwise how could they prove messages were deleted?
https://www.recovery-android.com/retrieve-whatsapp-from-android.html#solution2
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:49:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 01, 2018, 01:40:22 PM
The PSNI are having a nightmare with what's been out in court over the past few days. Sounds like they didn't take this serious at all - 17 days to collect Olding's clothes from the night? Obviously the fella would have washed them.

You've got it wrong.

It was McIlroy's clothes....McIlroy who the alleged victim said never touched her. Hence understandable the police were less interested in his clothing.

They didn't collect Olding's clothes because they felt there was no need to......he had admitted ejaculating in his statement.

The PSNI are coming out of this tainted and their behaviour throws up more questions than it gives answers.

Why would they go to Les Kiss first?

Why not ask/get for McIlroys clothes immediately instead of 17 days later?

Seems they didnt take this girls claims seriously at the beginning because of who it was against which in itself is a disgrace
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 02:57:17 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:48:04 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:29:47 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 01:59:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I was guessing that's why he was charged but wasn't sure. It was either that or police believed he had given a deliberately false account of the actions of others in order to help their case. I hadn't seen either reported though.

From a technical point of view I would imagine police either saw the WhatsApp messages originally or they were still present on someone else's phone? Otherwise how could they prove messages were deleted?

I'm not sure, but Hedworth/Hepworth?? the prosecution QC told the jury that though they had the substance of the texts and WhatsApps they couldn't be sure of the chronology because they'd been deleted.

Can you [or indeed anyone] remember when this happened as I cannot recollect deleted texts being mentioned before.

Just to be accurate Newstalk reported yesterday "The court heard a series of texts between Rory Harrison and Blane McIlroy were deleted".  Didn't mention Jackson or Olding deleting texts.  Harrison is also charged with withholding information.

Oh right didn't see that at all, I've just read the report in the Irish News about the texting and there is no mention of texts being deleted in it. 

Why isn't McIlroy being charged with withholding information and perverting course of justice also then if a series of texts between them were deleted? Not expecting you to know the answer to that AQMP..... Syf probably will tho lol
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:57:55 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 02:52:00 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 01, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
I just dont know how some people on here can say these guys are guilty, we dont know and will never know as we werent there; They may be but....

Rape is terrible but so is lying - and im not saying she is lying, but she wouldnt be the first; Just imagine for one minute she is lying.....u cant deny she would have good cause to lie ..

Just a different perspective, i dont and will never know what happened so wont come to conclussions

Where do you start with this?

Wherever you wish MS.

Sweeper is just asking a question and offering a view.........assume he will be shot to pieces very soon by our resident legal experts, qualified psychologists etc

What's the question exactly?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 03:03:28 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:57:55 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 02:52:00 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 01, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
I just dont know how some people on here can say these guys are guilty, we dont know and will never know as we werent there; They may be but....

Rape is terrible but so is lying - and im not saying she is lying, but she wouldnt be the first; Just imagine for one minute she is lying.....u cant deny she would have good cause to lie ..

Just a different perspective, i dont and will never know what happened so wont come to conclussions

Where do you start with this?

Wherever you wish MS.

Sweeper is just asking a question and offering a view.........assume he will be shot to pieces very soon by our resident legal experts, qualified psychologists etc

What's the question exactly?

He missed the ? at the end of the second sentence
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 03:05:20 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 02:57:17 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:48:04 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:29:47 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 01:59:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I was guessing that's why he was charged but wasn't sure. It was either that or police believed he had given a deliberately false account of the actions of others in order to help their case. I hadn't seen either reported though.

From a technical point of view I would imagine police either saw the WhatsApp messages originally or they were still present on someone else's phone? Otherwise how could they prove messages were deleted?

I'm not sure, but Hedworth/Hepworth?? the prosecution QC told the jury that though they had the substance of the texts and WhatsApps they couldn't be sure of the chronology because they'd been deleted.

Can you [or indeed anyone] remember when this happened as I cannot recollect deleted texts being mentioned before.

Just to be accurate Newstalk reported yesterday "The court heard a series of texts between Rory Harrison and Blane McIlroy were deleted".  Didn't mention Jackson or Olding deleting texts.  Harrison is also charged with withholding information.

Oh right didn't see that at all, I've just read the report in the Irish News about the texting and there is no mention of texts being deleted in it. 

Why isn't McIlroy being charged with withholding information and perverting course of justice also then if a series of texts between them were deleted? Not expecting you to know the answer to that AQMP..... Syf probably will tho lol

Not sure on the charges KS.  Actually I wonder why McIlroy hasn't been charged with something more serious than exposure (or maybe that's a more serious charge that covers a range of activity).  He admitted engaging in sexual activity with the alleged victim (oral sex I think)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 03:16:03 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 01, 2018, 02:51:43 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 02:34:10 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 01, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:06:42 PM
Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.

That was my initial thoughts as well. I think Harrison refers to the complainant saying it was not consensual but I imagine the defence will try to paint the picture that it was regret after the fact as per Olding's statement. Its a complete mess and I have no idea what way this  should or will go.

I do think it actually strengthens the case for anonymity for all participants. If the defendants had not been named there would be limited interest in the case. In the scenario where the guys are found not guilty that's only fair. But I also think it would help the other party as there would be limited media interest in who the complainant was. As it stands now I think it is likely that her name would  get out which helps no-one. And if it a guilty verdict, I would imagine its easier to maintain that anonymity for her (should she decide) because there has not been such media attention. I know there is an argument that other victims/witnesses  are more likely to come forward if the accused is named etc but on balance i think it would be better to have all this out of the media.

When there is a systematic and societal bias against rape victims even coming forward I have little issue with names being made public once charged. If the police and the state didn't beleive a rape happened it wouldn't reach that point to begin with. It again goes without saying that a not guilty verdict does not equal innocence or a right to pick up their lives as if nothing occurred.

I am amused by the hand wringing in this thread over them being named despite it being common in many other types of cases. Do you realise the bias you're propigating here?

You see this is where you let yourself down and expose the fact that you actually couldn't give a flying fcuk about the alleged victim here.  Anyone with half a brain would know that this case wouldn't have been given a second glance by the media if the defendants hadn't been such high profile people.

That being the case, this girl would have been spared the torture of having read and listen to the most intimate discussions about her being conducted on the front page of every newspaper and being the headline story in every news bulletin.  This trial and the associated reporting also has to have planted a seed of doubt into the mind of anyone thinking of coming forward in similar circumstances.

Of course, the defendants would have also been spared being vilified by every halfwit attention seeker in the street before being convicted of any wrongdoing.  And we all know someone in that bracket.

The victim has anonymity so this is a very bizarre post in a lot of ways.

The suggestion that they should have had their identifies protected particularly because they were well known and it would create a fuss might be the most incredible angle of the lot, though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 01, 2018, 03:16:54 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 02:34:10 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 01, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:06:42 PM
Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.

That was my initial thoughts as well. I think Harrison refers to the complainant saying it was not consensual but I imagine the defence will try to paint the picture that it was regret after the fact as per Olding's statement. Its a complete mess and I have no idea what way this  should or will go.

I do think it actually strengthens the case for anonymity for all participants. If the defendants had not been named there would be limited interest in the case. In the scenario where the guys are found not guilty that's only fair. But I also think it would help the other party as there would be limited media interest in who the complainant was. As it stands now I think it is likely that her name would  get out which helps no-one. And if it a guilty verdict, I would imagine its easier to maintain that anonymity for her (should she decide) because there has not been such media attention. I know there is an argument that other victims/witnesses  are more likely to come forward if the accused is named etc but on balance i think it would be better to have all this out of the media.

When there is a systematic and societal bias against rape victims even coming forward I have little issue with names being made public once charged. If the police and the state didn't beleive a rape happened it wouldn't reach that point to begin with. It again goes without saying that a not guilty verdict does not equal innocence or a right to pick up their lives as if nothing occurred.

I am amused by the hand wringing in this thread over them being named despite it being common in many other types of cases. Do you realise the bias you're propigating here?

Let me save you some time in future. Not one fcuk do I give about your views. You have repeatedly shown yourself to be a complete moron who seems to think that he knows better than anyone else regardless of subject. Fionntomach had you spot on earlier in this thread.

But, I will make one reply to you on this point.  I have absolutely no problem in rapists getting named and shamed. Your comment about it getting this far is pretty telling, you weren't the juror in the case AQMP referred to by any chance? He sounds like he is roughly on your wavelength. If that is the case why bother having jury trials at all? The police would be the first to admit they do not always get it right, but then you probably know better than them, the judges who devised the legal system et al.

Everyone knows that some rapists may get off, whether through reasonable doubt, lack of evidence, whatever. Nobody wants that but it will happen. There are also innocent people who have been falsely accused who have their lives ruined by their names being public record connected with rape. We cant do anything about the guilty who get off but I think it is the lesser of two evils to protect the identity of people falsely accused. And as I said above, I think the rationale for identifying accused before they are found guilty is flawed and doesn't necessarily help the complainant. Happy to debate that and if someone convinces me different thats fine. It will not be someone like you however, it will be someone who can string a coherent argument together.

Also good to see you find something in this thread amusing given your holier than thou attitude. There is no hand wringing on my part. What you dont seem to grasp, despite your superior intelligence  ::) is that rape trials are different. There is a stigma attached to them, regardless of verdict. This is recognised in cases involving minors where people found guilty are kept anonymous, not to protect them but to help keep the victims anonymous. Everyone knows there are issues with rape victims coming forward and society should absolutely be doing everything to encourage that. That should involve debating how the system works and how it should be improved.

As I have said before, I have no idea what happened in this case. Much of this thread has been about the legal process, definitions and burden of proof, and has been pretty informative because most people accept they dont know what happened. People may put forward what they think is likely to have happened but I dont think anyone is insisting that they know what happened, with one obvious exception of course...  What is particularly obviously is that you add little to no insight.  Bottom line, If these guys are guilty throw the book at them. If they are innocent I hope they are found not guilty. That doesn't make me a rape apologist, biased or any better placed than anyone else to comment. However, Moronic crusaders like yourself who had clearly made up their mind before the jury was even sworn in are a waste of everyone's time
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 03:20:01 PM
So there's no stigma to murder trials? What?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 03:23:08 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 03:05:20 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 02:57:17 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:48:04 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:29:47 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 01:59:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I was guessing that's why he was charged but wasn't sure. It was either that or police believed he had given a deliberately false account of the actions of others in order to help their case. I hadn't seen either reported though.

From a technical point of view I would imagine police either saw the WhatsApp messages originally or they were still present on someone else's phone? Otherwise how could they prove messages were deleted?

I'm not sure, but Hedworth/Hepworth?? the prosecution QC told the jury that though they had the substance of the texts and WhatsApps they couldn't be sure of the chronology because they'd been deleted.

Can you [or indeed anyone] remember when this happened as I cannot recollect deleted texts being mentioned before.

Just to be accurate Newstalk reported yesterday "The court heard a series of texts between Rory Harrison and Blane McIlroy were deleted".  Didn't mention Jackson or Olding deleting texts.  Harrison is also charged with withholding information.

Oh right didn't see that at all, I've just read the report in the Irish News about the texting and there is no mention of texts being deleted in it. 

Why isn't McIlroy being charged with withholding information and perverting course of justice also then if a series of texts between them were deleted? Not expecting you to know the answer to that AQMP..... Syf probably will tho lol

Not sure on the charges KS.  Actually I wonder why McIlroy hasn't been charged with something more serious than exposure (or maybe that's a more serious charge that covers a range of activity).  He admitted engaging in sexual activity with the alleged victim (oral sex I think)

It would have been impossible for them to have proven rape or sexual assault against him because the IP denied it ever happened. Very difficult to prove a lack of consent in that regard. That's why he's not charged with rape or sexual assault. The prosecution obviously don't believe his admission in respect of the consensual sex either.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 03:24:59 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 03:03:28 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:57:55 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 02:52:00 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 01, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
I just dont know how some people on here can say these guys are guilty, we dont know and will never know as we werent there; They may be but....

Rape is terrible but so is lying - and im not saying she is lying, but she wouldnt be the first; Just imagine for one minute she is lying.....u cant deny she would have good cause to lie ..

Just a different perspective, i dont and will never know what happened so wont come to conclussions

Where do you start with this?

Wherever you wish MS.

Sweeper is just asking a question and offering a view.........assume he will be shot to pieces very soon by our resident legal experts, qualified psychologists etc

What's the question exactly?

He missed the ? at the end of the second sentence

OK - that being the case I'm a little at a loss. I've no idea why this poster would assume it undeniable she would have good cause to lie. It makes little sense to me so I'm clearly missing something.

As for
QuoteRape is terrible but so is lying
all I will say is I know which one I'd prefer to be on the receiving end of.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 03:31:14 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 03:24:59 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 03:03:28 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:57:55 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 02:52:00 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 01, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
I just dont know how some people on here can say these guys are guilty, we dont know and will never know as we werent there; They may be but....

Rape is terrible but so is lying - and im not saying she is lying, but she wouldnt be the first; Just imagine for one minute she is lying.....u cant deny she would have good cause to lie ..

Just a different perspective, i dont and will never know what happened so wont come to conclussions

Where do you start with this?

Wherever you wish MS.

Sweeper is just asking a question and offering a view.........assume he will be shot to pieces very soon by our resident legal experts, qualified psychologists etc

What's the question exactly?

He missed the ? at the end of the second sentence

OK - that being the case I'm a little at a loss. I've no idea why this poster would assume it undeniable she would have good cause to lie. It makes little sense to me so I'm clearly missing something.

As for
QuoteRape is terrible but so is lying
all I will say is I know which one I'd prefer to be on the receiving end of.

Someone lies about something that you didnt do - you are found guilty and have to spend 10-20 years of your life in jail.

Depends on the lie but in this case either outcome isnt pretty
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 03:31:58 PM
Prosecution closes its case!!!!

Can anybody in the know say if this is a good or a bad thing?

EDIT: Just read up on it not a big deal up to the defence now.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 01, 2018, 03:32:24 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 01, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
I just dont know how some people on here can say these guys are guilty, we dont know and will never know as we werent there; They may be but....

Rape is terrible but so is lying - and im not saying she is lying, but she wouldnt be the first; Just imagine for one minute she is lying.....u cant deny she would have good cause to lie ..

Just a different perspective, i dont and will never know what happened so wont come to conclussions

Where do you start with this?

By ignoring it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 03:35:24 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 03:23:08 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 03:05:20 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 02:57:17 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:48:04 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:29:47 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 01, 2018, 01:59:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 01, 2018, 01:28:09 PM
Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I was guessing that's why he was charged but wasn't sure. It was either that or police believed he had given a deliberately false account of the actions of others in order to help their case. I hadn't seen either reported though.

From a technical point of view I would imagine police either saw the WhatsApp messages originally or they were still present on someone else's phone? Otherwise how could they prove messages were deleted?

I'm not sure, but Hedworth/Hepworth?? the prosecution QC told the jury that though they had the substance of the texts and WhatsApps they couldn't be sure of the chronology because they'd been deleted.

Can you [or indeed anyone] remember when this happened as I cannot recollect deleted texts being mentioned before.

Just to be accurate Newstalk reported yesterday "The court heard a series of texts between Rory Harrison and Blane McIlroy were deleted".  Didn't mention Jackson or Olding deleting texts.  Harrison is also charged with withholding information.

Oh right didn't see that at all, I've just read the report in the Irish News about the texting and there is no mention of texts being deleted in it. 

Why isn't McIlroy being charged with withholding information and perverting course of justice also then if a series of texts between them were deleted? Not expecting you to know the answer to that AQMP..... Syf probably will tho lol

Not sure on the charges KS.  Actually I wonder why McIlroy hasn't been charged with something more serious than exposure (or maybe that's a more serious charge that covers a range of activity).  He admitted engaging in sexual activity with the alleged victim (oral sex I think)

It would have been impossible for them to have proven rape or sexual assault against him because the IP denied it ever happened. Very difficult to prove a lack of consent in that regard. That's why he's not charged with rape or sexual assault. The prosecution obviously don't believe his admission in respect of the consensual sex either.

Thanks David.  Good to have your cool head keeping us right around here!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 01, 2018, 03:35:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:49:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 01, 2018, 01:40:22 PM
The PSNI are having a nightmare with what's been out in court over the past few days. Sounds like they didn't take this serious at all - 17 days to collect Olding's clothes from the night? Obviously the fella would have washed them.

You've got it wrong.

It was McIlroy's clothes....McIlroy who the alleged victim said never touched her. Hence understandable the police were less interested in his clothing.

They didn't collect Olding's clothes because they felt there was no need to......he had admitted ejaculating in his statement.
Why not ask/get for McIlroys clothes immediately instead of 17 days later?

He literally explained that to you in the post you responded to.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 03:36:22 PM
QuoteThe officer was also asked about "inconsistencies" in the account the woman gave to a doctor at the Rowan sexual assault referral centre in Antrim. The jury has already heard that the then 19-year old told the doctor she was vaginally raped by two men - with no mention of forced oral sex.

O'Donoghoe asked the officer that after receiving the doctor's report, "you must have said to yourself 'What in God's name is this?'" The policewoman said she wouldn't have used those words.

She did, however, agree there were "significant inconsistencies" between what the woman told the doctor and what she told police.

Reporting by Ashleigh McDonald for M&M News Servic

None of that sounds good for the prosecution!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tonto1888 on March 01, 2018, 03:38:43 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 01, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
I just dont know how some people on here can say these guys are guilty, we dont know and will never know as we werent there; They may be but....

Rape is terrible but so is lying - and im not saying she is lying, but she wouldnt be the first; Just imagine for one minute she is lying.....u cant deny she would have good cause to lie ..

Just a different perspective, i dont and will never know what happened so wont come to conclussions

I don't think she is lying. I think she genuinely believes she was raped. Wether she was or not is another story but I don't think she has made the whole thing up
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 01, 2018, 03:43:30 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 03:20:01 PM
So there's no stigma to murder trials? What?

I didnt say there was no stigma attached to murder trials, I said rape cases were different. Its usually pretty clear in a murder trial whether a crime has been committed. The decision the jury usually has to make is whether they have the right person. In a rape trial the jury has to decide if a crime actually took place i.e. did the complainant consent. In a private place and in the absence of physical evidence, that ultimately comes down to do you believe the complainant or the defendant. In my opinion there is a view of no smoke without fire in rape cases, your attitude being a pretty good example. This is because people think "why would they put themselves through an ordeal like what is going on in Belfast if there was nothing behind it". And I happen to think that's probably right, the vast majority of cases that make it to court are probably true. Where we clearly differ is that I do not think that accepting a couple of innocent people having their lives ruined even after being found not guilty is acceptable collateral damage when this could be prevented by looking at the anonymity provisions. 

Rape cases attract more media attention than most other types of prosecution and basically mud sticks, irrespective of verdict.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 03:45:17 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 01, 2018, 03:35:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:49:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 01, 2018, 01:40:22 PM
The PSNI are having a nightmare with what's been out in court over the past few days. Sounds like they didn't take this serious at all - 17 days to collect Olding's clothes from the night? Obviously the fella would have washed them.

You've got it wrong.

It was McIlroy's clothes....McIlroy who the alleged victim said never touched her. Hence understandable the police were less interested in his clothing.

They didn't collect Olding's clothes because they felt there was no need to......he had admitted ejaculating in his statement.
Why not ask/get for McIlroys clothes immediately instead of 17 days later?

He literally explained that to you in the post you responded to.

Ok - so they were less interested in his clothing but then changed their mind 17 days later and then decided they had to get his clothing  :o

Clear as mud.

Edit..as I said the PSNI have a lot of answers to give in all this and seem to be grossly incompetent. The defence will no doubt show how incompetent they are now they are questioning them
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 01, 2018, 04:04:00 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 01, 2018, 03:43:30 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 03:20:01 PM
So there's no stigma to murder trials? What?

I didnt say there was no stigma attached to murder trials, I said rape cases were different. Its usually pretty clear in a murder trial whether a crime has been committed. The decision the jury usually has to make is whether they have the right person. In a rape trial the jury has to decide if a crime actually took place i.e. did the complainant consent. In a private place and in the absence of physical evidence, that ultimately comes down to do you believe the complainant or the defendant. In my opinion there is a view of no smoke without fire in rape cases, your attitude being a pretty good example. This is because people think "why would they put themselves through an ordeal like what is going on in Belfast if there was nothing behind it". And I happen to think that's probably right, the vast majority of cases that make it to court are probably true. Where we clearly differ is that I do not think that accepting a couple of innocent people having their lives ruined even after being found not guilty is acceptable collateral damage when this could be prevented by looking at the anonymity provisions. 

Rape cases attract more media attention than most other types of prosecution and basically mud sticks, irrespective of verdict.

I wouldn't say they necessarily attract more media attention. It wouldn't have mattered what this case was - it's the fact that it is "celebrities" involved causing all the media furore. If this was three or four boys from a lower league rugby team this thread wouldn't exist. It's not the alleged crime here it's who's involved.

There's stigma to anything. There may be less stigma to a murder case where someone gets acquitted and someone else found guilty but in a scenario like this you are not proven innocent you are unable to be proven guilty. It will also stick with this girl (as in perception because obviously the experience will) for a very long time (most likely life) if these boys are found guilty and probably moreso if they aren't proven to be guilty.

The term innocent till proven guilty doesn't exist any more really.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 04:08:07 PM
It never did outside of a legal context.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 01, 2018, 04:09:30 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 03:45:17 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 01, 2018, 03:35:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:49:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 01, 2018, 01:40:22 PM
The PSNI are having a nightmare with what's been out in court over the past few days. Sounds like they didn't take this serious at all - 17 days to collect Olding's clothes from the night? Obviously the fella would have washed them.

You've got it wrong.

It was McIlroy's clothes....McIlroy who the alleged victim said never touched her. Hence understandable the police were less interested in his clothing.

They didn't collect Olding's clothes because they felt there was no need to......he had admitted ejaculating in his statement.
Why not ask/get for McIlroys clothes immediately instead of 17 days later?

He literally explained that to you in the post you responded to.

Ok - so they were less interested in his clothing but then changed their mind 17 days later and then decided they had to get his clothing  :o

Clear as mud.

Edit..as I said the PSNI have a lot of answers to give in all this and seem to be grossly incompetent. The defence will no doubt show how incompetent they are now they are questioning them

That's the whole point - it's as clear as mud. If it was otherwise, it wouldn't need a six week trial.

It's perfectly conceivable they with all the conflicting reports and statements they decided to return to McIlroy and ask for the clothes.

The PSNI may have lots of questions to answer. One thing they do not have to do is explain their processes and procedures to a bunch of dickheads on an internet forum complaining that nothing makes sense off the back of a few tweets.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 04:43:13 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 01, 2018, 04:09:30 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 03:45:17 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 01, 2018, 03:35:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 01, 2018, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 01, 2018, 02:49:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 01, 2018, 01:40:22 PM
The PSNI are having a nightmare with what's been out in court over the past few days. Sounds like they didn't take this serious at all - 17 days to collect Olding's clothes from the night? Obviously the fella would have washed them.

You've got it wrong.

It was McIlroy's clothes....McIlroy who the alleged victim said never touched her. Hence understandable the police were less interested in his clothing.

They didn't collect Olding's clothes because they felt there was no need to......he had admitted ejaculating in his statement.
Why not ask/get for McIlroys clothes immediately instead of 17 days later?

He literally explained that to you in the post you responded to.

Ok - so they were less interested in his clothing but then changed their mind 17 days later and then decided they had to get his clothing  :o

Clear as mud.

Edit..as I said the PSNI have a lot of answers to give in all this and seem to be grossly incompetent. The defence will no doubt show how incompetent they are now they are questioning them

That's the whole point - it's as clear as mud. If it was otherwise, it wouldn't need a six week trial.

It's perfectly conceivable they with all the conflicting reports and statements they decided to return to McIlroy and ask for the clothes.

The PSNI may have lots of questions to answer. One thing they do not have to do is explain their processes and procedures to a bunch of d**kheads on an internet forum complaining that nothing makes sense off the back of a few tweets.

;D ;D

Another keyboard warrior getting his knickers in a twist
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 01, 2018, 05:02:17 PM
Given all heard to date, am I alone in believing that the jury will be divided on the verdict and there won't be a second trial given the current media interest?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 07:34:05 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 03:31:58 PM
Prosecution closes its case!!!!

Can anybody in the know say if this is a good or a bad thing?

EDIT: Just read up on it not a big deal up to the defence now.

It's a perfectly normal thing that happens in almost every trial.

Presumably if there's any legal arguments about no case to answer etc they will be made now then it's over to the defence. Interestingly if they are saying there's another two weeks to run that would suggest either all defendants intend to give evidence or less likely the defence for tactical reasons want to make it look like they are going to give evidence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 01, 2018, 08:02:28 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 07:34:05 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 03:31:58 PM
Prosecution closes its case!!!!

Can anybody in the know say if this is a good or a bad thing?

EDIT: Just read up on it not a big deal up to the defence now.

It's a perfectly normal thing that happens in almost every trial.

Presumably if there's any legal arguments about no case to answer etc they will be made now then it's over to the defence. Interestingly if they are saying there's another two weeks to run that would suggest either all defendants intend to give evidence or less likely the defence for tactical reasons want to make it look like they are going to give evidence.

Sorry DMcK, I'm waiting on Syferus on this one!

It's going to take him a few days to get from Roscommon to Belfast in his horse and cart but I believe he'll be there to ask for the death penalty, where he himself will flick the switch!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 01, 2018, 08:22:44 PM
It is a high horse though and they must be quicker ;D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 01, 2018, 10:25:24 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 07:34:05 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 03:31:58 PM
Prosecution closes its case!!!!

Can anybody in the know say if this is a good or a bad thing?

EDIT: Just read up on it not a big deal up to the defence now.

It's a perfectly normal thing that happens in almost every trial.

Presumably if there's any legal arguments about no case to answer etc they will be made now then it's over to the defence. Interestingly if they are saying there's another two weeks to run that would suggest either all defendants intend to give evidence or less likely the defence for tactical reasons want to make it look like they are going to give evidence.

I see the court is sitting tomorrow for legal arguments...Is that basically defence qcs saying to judge no case to answer and prosecution qc arguing to.judge there is David.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 02, 2018, 12:35:08 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 01, 2018, 10:25:24 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 07:34:05 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 01, 2018, 03:31:58 PM
Prosecution closes its case!!!!

Can anybody in the know say if this is a good or a bad thing?

EDIT: Just read up on it not a big deal up to the defence now.

It's a perfectly normal thing that happens in almost every trial.

Presumably if there's any legal arguments about no case to answer etc they will be made now then it's over to the defence. Interestingly if they are saying there's another two weeks to run that would suggest either all defendants intend to give evidence or less likely the defence for tactical reasons want to make it look like they are going to give evidence.

I see the court is sitting tomorrow for legal arguments...Is that basically defence qcs saying to judge no case to answer and prosecution qc arguing to.judge there is David.

Hard to know could be a fair few things including possibly no case to answer applications or Galbraith applications as they are known.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 06:49:42 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 01, 2018, 05:02:17 PM
Given all heard to date, am I alone in believing that the jury will be divided on the verdict and there won't be a second trial given the current media interest?
If this forum is anything to go by, the make-up of the jury and their personal beliefs around what is consent and what is rape will be key.

Call me old fashioned but the fact that another girl walked in and thought the oral sex looked consensual(I don't understand how you could orally rape someone without physical threat or force since she's the one performing the act on the man, it's not passive) and the fact that the alleged victim had this chance to stop things and didn't would have me going not guilty.

I also find it strange that she didn't mention this witness coming in during her police interview, only after the interview had been  completed. I imagine they go through these things in great detail during an interview and it seems a huge omission. There are inconsistencies on both sides and those who are forgiving the girl's omissions due to trauma are making no such allowances for the accused.

For all the pontificating about the texts and WhatsApp messages(and they do sound like arseholes) these actually support their version of events and don't hint at any fear they had done anything wrong.

Then again, these lads do sound obnoxious enough to have raped someone without realising it but I believe that anyone who can't see that  there's reasonable doubt is prejudiced and had their mind made up from the start.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 07:41:14 AM
There are omissions for trauma and then the Jackson denying sex even took place. That's not an omission. If proven, it's a lie.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 07:59:09 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 07:41:14 AM
There are omissions for trauma and then the Jackson denying sex even took place. That's not an omission. If proven, it's a lie.

Did he think that cause he couldn't get it up that he didn't have sex? Dry humping and using the hand was his statement ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 02, 2018, 08:28:46 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 07:59:09 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 07:41:14 AM
There are omissions for trauma and then the Jackson denying sex even took place. That's not an omission. If proven, it's a lie.

Did he think that cause he couldn't get it up that he didn't have sex? Dry humping and using the hand was his statement ?

I think this will be key. The fact that he claims he couldn't get it up and there doesn't seem to be much  medical evidence to back up sex, fluid etc. The internal vaginal would suggest that this was caused by something scrapping her, a nail or a ring for example, which would back up PJs assertion of using his hand. Although one witness says she saw them having sex she does not confirm that she saw penetration. She saw the motion of sex but cannot categorically confirm it. I think without clear medical evidence of sex having taken place then it will be very hard to prove beyond doubt that they had sex and therefore will be sufficient in my opinion to raise doubt. The WhatsApp messages are not good but they are circumstancial and can be played as lads being lads.

I think so far there are just too many inconsistencies and even though they have a lot of inconsistencies too I just don't know.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 09:39:08 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 02, 2018, 08:28:46 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 07:59:09 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 07:41:14 AM
There are omissions for trauma and then the Jackson denying sex even took place. That's not an omission. If proven, it's a lie.

Did he think that cause he couldn't get it up that he didn't have sex? Dry humping and using the hand was his statement ?

I think this will be key. The fact that he claims he couldn't get it up and there doesn't seem to be much  medical evidence to back up sex, fluid etc. The internal vaginal would suggest that this was caused by something scrapping her, a nail or a ring for example, which would back up PJs assertion of using his hand. Although one witness says she saw them having sex she does not confirm that she saw penetration. She saw the motion of sex but cannot categorically confirm it. I think without clear medical evidence of sex having taken place then it will be very hard to prove beyond doubt that they had sex and therefore will be sufficient in my opinion to raise doubt. The WhatsApp messages are not good but they are circumstancial and can be played as lads being lads.

I think so far there are just too many inconsistencies and even though they have a lot of inconsistencies too I just don't know.
She definitely didn't see him using his hand
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 09:45:58 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 09:39:08 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 02, 2018, 08:28:46 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 07:59:09 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 07:41:14 AM
There are omissions for trauma and then the Jackson denying sex even took place. That's not an omission. If proven, it's a lie.

Did he think that cause he couldn't get it up that he didn't have sex? Dry humping and using the hand was his statement ?

I think this will be key. The fact that he claims he couldn't get it up and there doesn't seem to be much  medical evidence to back up sex, fluid etc. The internal vaginal would suggest that this was caused by something scrapping her, a nail or a ring for example, which would back up PJs assertion of using his hand. Although one witness says she saw them having sex she does not confirm that she saw penetration. She saw the motion of sex but cannot categorically confirm it. I think without clear medical evidence of sex having taken place then it will be very hard to prove beyond doubt that they had sex and therefore will be sufficient in my opinion to raise doubt. The WhatsApp messages are not good but they are circumstancial and can be played as lads being lads.

I think so far there are just too many inconsistencies and even though they have a lot of inconsistencies too I just don't know.
She definitely didn't see him using his hand

When see looked in she didn't! But no semen from Jackson also to think about
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 02, 2018, 09:58:20 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 06:49:42 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 01, 2018, 05:02:17 PM
Given all heard to date, am I alone in believing that the jury will be divided on the verdict and there won't be a second trial given the current media interest?
If this forum is anything to go by, the make-up of the jury and their personal beliefs around what is consent and what is rape will be key.

Call me old fashioned but the fact that another girl walked in and thought the oral sex looked consensual(I don't understand how you could orally rape someone without physical threat or force since she's the one performing the act on the man, it's not passive) and the fact that the alleged victim had this chance to stop things and didn't would have me going not guilty.

I also find it strange that she didn't mention this witness coming in during her police interview, only after the interview had been  completed. I imagine they go through these things in great detail during an interview and it seems a huge omission. There are inconsistencies on both sides and those who are forgiving the girl's omissions due to trauma are making no such allowances for the accused.

For all the pontificating about the texts and WhatsApp messages(and they do sound like arseholes) these actually support their version of events and don't hint at any fear they had done anything wrong.

Then again, these lads do sound obnoxious enough to have raped someone without realising it but I believe that anyone who can't see that  there's reasonable doubt is prejudiced and had their mind made up from the start.

You've got a point here AM.  The more I think about this the more I think that no matter what the judge directs the jury to do it might come down to:

"If she didn't fight back she must have consented" - Not Guilty v. "They're a bunch of dirty middle class self entitled pricks who are at this all the time and have eventually been caught on, hell slap it up them" with a side order of "what are those two cnuts doing sleeping in the same bed three nights a week?" - Guilty as Fcuk

If the defendants take the stand that all might change.  I'd say the prosecution are praying that Rory Harrison gives evidence.  He has the demeanour of someone who's about to burst out crying and drop everyone in it!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 10:02:19 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 09:45:58 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 09:39:08 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 02, 2018, 08:28:46 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 07:59:09 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 07:41:14 AM
There are omissions for trauma and then the Jackson denying sex even took place. That's not an omission. If proven, it's a lie.

Did he think that cause he couldn't get it up that he didn't have sex? Dry humping and using the hand was his statement ?

I think this will be key. The fact that he claims he couldn't get it up and there doesn't seem to be much  medical evidence to back up sex, fluid etc. The internal vaginal would suggest that this was caused by something scrapping her, a nail or a ring for example, which would back up PJs assertion of using his hand. Although one witness says she saw them having sex she does not confirm that she saw penetration. She saw the motion of sex but cannot categorically confirm it. I think without clear medical evidence of sex having taken place then it will be very hard to prove beyond doubt that they had sex and therefore will be sufficient in my opinion to raise doubt. The WhatsApp messages are not good but they are circumstancial and can be played as lads being lads.

I think so far there are just too many inconsistencies and even though they have a lot of inconsistencies too I just don't know.
She definitely didn't see him using his hand

When see looked in she didn't! But no semen from Jackson also to think about
No lead in the pencil is one thing but it is very different to the Jackson 5.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 10:03:27 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 02, 2018, 08:28:46 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 07:59:09 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 07:41:14 AM
There are omissions for trauma and then the Jackson denying sex even took place. That's not an omission. If proven, it's a lie.

Did he think that cause he couldn't get it up that he didn't have sex? Dry humping and using the hand was his statement ?

I think this will be key. The fact that he claims he couldn't get it up and there doesn't seem to be much  medical evidence to back up sex, fluid etc. The internal vaginal would suggest that this was caused by something scrapping her, a nail or a ring for example, which would back up PJs assertion of using his hand. Although one witness says she saw them having sex she does not confirm that she saw penetration. She saw the motion of sex but cannot categorically confirm it. I think without clear medical evidence of sex having taken place then it will be very hard to prove beyond doubt that they had sex and therefore will be sufficient in my opinion to raise doubt. The WhatsApp messages are not good but they are circumstancial and can be played as lads being lads.

I think so far there are just too many inconsistencies and even though they have a lot of inconsistencies too I just don't know.

The WhatsApp's aren't circumstantial. The following day, in their own words, the lads referred to a spit roast. This is then corroborated by the evidence from the witness.

Anyone who thinks Jackson decided to dry humping her because he couldn't get it up is absolutely kidding themselves.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 10:21:24 AM
Mcillroy also claimed to have had sex with her in WhatsApp messages, though according to the girl he never touched her. Childish boasts between themselves can't imo be taken to mean much.
As for PJ not getting it up and having to improvise, it happens.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 10:30:13 AM
Anyone, and I mean anyone, on this board who claims that in the event of ever not getting it up, they've just humped way at someone with a flaccid knob should be laughed out of the place.

These are relatively well known (very well known in some circumstances) sportspeople. They'd have absolutely no problem getting their holes as and when they wanted. There's no way in hell they'd be lying about it to try and look cool in front of the lads.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 02, 2018, 10:34:40 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 10:21:24 AM
Mcillroy also claimed to have had sex with her in WhatsApp messages, though according to the girl he never touched her. Childish boasts between themselves can't imo be taken to mean much.
As for PJ not getting it up and having to improvise, it happens.

That's my opinion on it....lads still half cut from the night before. A lot of laddish attitudes that occur weekend after weekend. The lack of semen or any fluid in her vagina is not good for the prosecution.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: DuffleKing on March 02, 2018, 10:47:34 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 02, 2018, 10:34:40 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 10:21:24 AM
Mcillroy also claimed to have had sex with her in WhatsApp messages, though according to the girl he never touched her. Childish boasts between themselves can't imo be taken to mean much.
As for PJ not getting it up and having to improvise, it happens.

That's my opinion on it....lads still half cut from the night before. A lot of laddish attitudes that occur weekend after weekend. The lack of semen or any fluid in her vagina is not good for the prosecution.

This is how I see it also. I find it very difficult to believe that a jury will convict on the evidence thus far and given that any remaining evidence will now be presented by the defence I think this can only end one way.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 11:01:35 AM
Quote from: DuffleKing on March 02, 2018, 10:47:34 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 02, 2018, 10:34:40 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 10:21:24 AM
Mcillroy also claimed to have had sex with her in WhatsApp messages, though according to the girl he never touched her. Childish boasts between themselves can't imo be taken to mean much.
As for PJ not getting it up and having to improvise, it happens.

That's my opinion on it....lads still half cut from the night before. A lot of laddish attitudes that occur weekend after weekend. The lack of semen or any fluid in her vagina is not good for the prosecution.

This is how I see it also. I find it very difficult to believe that a jury will convict on the evidence thus far and given that any remaining evidence will now be presented by the defence I think this can only end one way.

That works both ways though. Any defence witnesses, if they have any, will be cross examined by the prosecution.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 02, 2018, 11:05:35 AM
Defence might apply to have the case dismissed at this point
The attitude of the Judge who has looked at the participants since the start mightnt agree.
In that case the Judges summing up will be
vital
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 11:11:23 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 02, 2018, 10:34:40 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 10:21:24 AM
Mcillroy also claimed to have had sex with her in WhatsApp messages, though according to the girl he never touched her. Childish boasts between themselves can't imo be taken to mean much.
As for PJ not getting it up and having to improvise, it happens.

That's my opinion on it....lads still half cut from the night before. A lot of laddish attitudes that occur weekend after weekend. The lack of semen or any fluid in her vagina is not good for the prosecution.
Surely she could have been raped even if he didn't ejaculate
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 02, 2018, 11:14:06 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 11:11:23 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 02, 2018, 10:34:40 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 10:21:24 AM
Mcillroy also claimed to have had sex with her in WhatsApp messages, though according to the girl he never touched her. Childish boasts between themselves can't imo be taken to mean much.
As for PJ not getting it up and having to improvise, it happens.

That's my opinion on it....lads still half cut from the night before. A lot of laddish attitudes that occur weekend after weekend. The lack of semen or any fluid in her vagina is not good for the prosecution.
Surely she could have been raped even if he didn't ejaculate

Yes but there is other bodily fluid that will possibly pass. Not saying it's absolute but it can happen. It weakens the prosecution case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Wildweasel74 on March 02, 2018, 11:19:12 AM
The fact that this thread has reached a 100pgs is embarrassing, you lads nothing to do all day? I don remember a in depth thread on a gaa footballer dog fighting or anything else that bring a gaa into serious disrepute, but we all good for a i believe  / i don't believe thread on a rape case involving rugby players. How about just read the papers and leave it at that!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 02, 2018, 11:29:44 AM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on March 02, 2018, 11:19:12 AM
The fact that this thread has reached a 100pgs is embarrassing, you lads nothing to do all day? I don remember a in depth thread on a gaa footballer dog fighting or anything else that bring a gaa into serious disrepute, but we all good for a i believe  / i don't believe thread on a rape case involving rugby players. How about just read the papers and leave it at that!

why feel the need to come on to the thread and add to it then?  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 12:40:16 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 02, 2018, 11:14:06 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 11:11:23 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 02, 2018, 10:34:40 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 10:21:24 AM
Mcillroy also claimed to have had sex with her in WhatsApp messages, though according to the girl he never touched her. Childish boasts between themselves can't imo be taken to mean much.
As for PJ not getting it up and having to improvise, it happens.

That's my opinion on it....lads still half cut from the night before. A lot of laddish attitudes that occur weekend after weekend. The lack of semen or any fluid in her vagina is not good for the prosecution.
Surely she could have been raped even if he didn't ejaculate

Yes but there is other bodily fluid that will possibly pass. Not saying it's absolute but it can happen. It weakens the prosecution case.
Rape is pretty simple though. Penetration without consent.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 02, 2018, 01:41:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 12:40:16 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 02, 2018, 11:14:06 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 11:11:23 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 02, 2018, 10:34:40 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 10:21:24 AM
Mcillroy also claimed to have had sex with her in WhatsApp messages, though according to the girl he never touched her. Childish boasts between themselves can't imo be taken to mean much.
As for PJ not getting it up and having to improvise, it happens.

That's my opinion on it....lads still half cut from the night before. A lot of laddish attitudes that occur weekend after weekend. The lack of semen or any fluid in her vagina is not good for the prosecution.
Surely she could have been raped even if he didn't ejaculate

Yes but there is other bodily fluid that will possibly pass. Not saying it's absolute but it can happen. It weakens the prosecution case.
Rape is pretty simple though. Penetration without consent.

Your forgetting a step there.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 02, 2018, 01:46:18 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on March 02, 2018, 11:19:12 AM
The fact that this thread has reached a 100pgs is embarrassing, you lads nothing to do all day? I don remember a in depth thread on a gaa footballer dog fighting or anything else that bring a gaa into serious disrepute, but we all good for a i believe  / i don't believe thread on a rape case involving rugby players. How about just read the papers and leave it at that!

Haven't you anything else to do without interfering with this very important legal discussion?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 02, 2018, 01:47:43 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on March 02, 2018, 11:19:12 AM
The fact that this thread has reached a 100pgs is embarrassing, you lads nothing to do all day? I don remember a in depth thread on a gaa footballer dog fighting or anything else that bring a gaa into serious disrepute, but we all good for a i believe  / i don't believe thread on a rape case involving rugby players. How about just read the papers and leave it at that!

In fairness and I hate to say it, there is more sense talked in this thread (at times) than some of the people who talk about it in my workplace.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 02, 2018, 02:26:14 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 02, 2018, 01:47:43 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on March 02, 2018, 11:19:12 AM
The fact that this thread has reached a 100pgs is embarrassing, you lads nothing to do all day? I don remember a in depth thread on a gaa footballer dog fighting or anything else that bring a gaa into serious disrepute, but we all good for a i believe  / i don't believe thread on a rape case involving rugby players. How about just read the papers and leave it at that!

In fairness and I hate to say it, there is more sense talked in this thread (at times) than some of the people who talk about it in my workplace.

You have clearly used the Ignore function on a few punters ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on March 02, 2018, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 10:30:13 AM
These are relatively well known (very well known in some circumstances) sportspeople. They'd have absolutely no problem getting their holes as and when they wanted. There's no way in hell they'd be lying about it to try and look cool in front of the lads.
Why wouldn't they lie? I know fellas in their 20s who have no problem pulling but that doesn't stop them exaggerating the truth now and again. You think just because they're relatively famous that they aren't capable of the same? Olding and Jackson are no show ponies, it's the same dynamic in any  whatsapp group, fellas will exaggerate their conquests from the weekend regardless of how much they earn
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 03:32:04 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 02, 2018, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 10:30:13 AM
These are relatively well known (very well known in some circumstances) sportspeople. They'd have absolutely no problem getting their holes as and when they wanted. There's no way in hell they'd be lying about it to try and look cool in front of the lads.
Why wouldn't they lie? I know fellas in their 20s who have no problem pulling but that doesn't stop them exaggerating the truth now and again. You think just because they're relatively famous that they aren't capable of the same? Olding and Jackson are no show ponies, it's the same dynamic in any  whatsapp group, fellas will exaggerate their conquests from the weekend regardless of how much they earn

Ok, then just happened to lie about partaking in a specific act that a witness just happened to lie about seeing them partake in. Gotcha.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 03:32:04 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 02, 2018, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 10:30:13 AM
These are relatively well known (very well known in some circumstances) sportspeople. They'd have absolutely no problem getting their holes as and when they wanted. There's no way in hell they'd be lying about it to try and look cool in front of the lads.
Why wouldn't they lie? I know fellas in their 20s who have no problem pulling but that doesn't stop them exaggerating the truth now and again. You think just because they're relatively famous that they aren't capable of the same? Olding and Jackson are no show ponies, it's the same dynamic in any  whatsapp group, fellas will exaggerate their conquests from the weekend regardless of how much they earn

Ok, then just happened to lie about partaking in a specific act that a witness just happened to lie about seeing them partake in. Gotcha.
So you're basing it all on the text messages? Nothing about the girl taking her top off and performing oral (as witness said) without force! The only witness to say rape happened was the IP, no physical evidence that's stand out or other damming evidence other than the text, which don't back up their accounts. So they exaggerated parts possibly?

I'm playing devils advocate here.. none of its good
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 03:53:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 03:32:04 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 02, 2018, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 10:30:13 AM
These are relatively well known (very well known in some circumstances) sportspeople. They'd have absolutely no problem getting their holes as and when they wanted. There's no way in hell they'd be lying about it to try and look cool in front of the lads.
Why wouldn't they lie? I know fellas in their 20s who have no problem pulling but that doesn't stop them exaggerating the truth now and again. You think just because they're relatively famous that they aren't capable of the same? Olding and Jackson are no show ponies, it's the same dynamic in any  whatsapp group, fellas will exaggerate their conquests from the weekend regardless of how much they earn

Ok, then just happened to lie about partaking in a specific act that a witness just happened to lie about seeing them partake in. Gotcha.
So you're basing it all on the text messages? Nothing about the girl taking her top off and performing oral (as witness said) without force! The only witness to say rape happened was the IP, no physical evidence that's stand out or other damming evidence other than the text, which don't back up their accounts. So they exaggerated parts possibly?

I'm playing devils advocate here.. none of its good
What happened before her top was removed? And why was she bleeding?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 04:14:12 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 03:53:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 03:32:04 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 02, 2018, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 10:30:13 AM
These are relatively well known (very well known in some circumstances) sportspeople. They'd have absolutely no problem getting their holes as and when they wanted. There's no way in hell they'd be lying about it to try and look cool in front of the lads.
Why wouldn't they lie? I know fellas in their 20s who have no problem pulling but that doesn't stop them exaggerating the truth now and again. You think just because they're relatively famous that they aren't capable of the same? Olding and Jackson are no show ponies, it's the same dynamic in any  whatsapp group, fellas will exaggerate their conquests from the weekend regardless of how much they earn

Ok, then just happened to lie about partaking in a specific act that a witness just happened to lie about seeing them partake in. Gotcha.
So you're basing it all on the text messages? Nothing about the girl taking her top off and performing oral (as witness said) without force! The only witness to say rape happened was the IP, no physical evidence that's stand out or other damming evidence other than the text, which don't back up their accounts. So they exaggerated parts possibly?

I'm playing devils advocate here.. none of its good
What happened before her top was removed? And why was she bleeding?
There was talk of her period and if there was hand penetration that could have done it, was a text from the ip saying to her friend that her period had come?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 02, 2018, 04:23:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 04:14:12 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 03:53:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 03:32:04 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 02, 2018, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 10:30:13 AM
These are relatively well known (very well known in some circumstances) sportspeople. They'd have absolutely no problem getting their holes as and when they wanted. There's no way in hell they'd be lying about it to try and look cool in front of the lads.
Why wouldn't they lie? I know fellas in their 20s who have no problem pulling but that doesn't stop them exaggerating the truth now and again. You think just because they're relatively famous that they aren't capable of the same? Olding and Jackson are no show ponies, it's the same dynamic in any  whatsapp group, fellas will exaggerate their conquests from the weekend regardless of how much they earn

Ok, then just happened to lie about partaking in a specific act that a witness just happened to lie about seeing them partake in. Gotcha.
So you're basing it all on the text messages? Nothing about the girl taking her top off and performing oral (as witness said) without force! The only witness to say rape happened was the IP, no physical evidence that's stand out or other damming evidence other than the text, which don't back up their accounts. So they exaggerated parts possibly?

I'm playing devils advocate here.. none of its good
What happened before her top was removed? And why was she bleeding?
There was talk of her period and if there was hand penetration that could have done it, was a text from the ip saying to her friend that her period had come?

Did the doctor who examined the complainant not rule out the blood being menstrual? I'm pretty sure this was mentioned during the medical evidence.  Anyway, sure people exaggerate in texts all the time, so that proves nothing ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 02, 2018, 04:26:33 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 04:14:12 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 03:53:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 03:32:04 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 02, 2018, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 10:30:13 AM
These are relatively well known (very well known in some circumstances) sportspeople. They'd have absolutely no problem getting their holes as and when they wanted. There's no way in hell they'd be lying about it to try and look cool in front of the lads.
Why wouldn't they lie? I know fellas in their 20s who have no problem pulling but that doesn't stop them exaggerating the truth now and again. You think just because they're relatively famous that they aren't capable of the same? Olding and Jackson are no show ponies, it's the same dynamic in any  whatsapp group, fellas will exaggerate their conquests from the weekend regardless of how much they earn

Ok, then just happened to lie about partaking in a specific act that a witness just happened to lie about seeing them partake in. Gotcha.
So you're basing it all on the text messages? Nothing about the girl taking her top off and performing oral (as witness said) without force! The only witness to say rape happened was the IP, no physical evidence that's stand out or other damming evidence other than the text, which don't back up their accounts. So they exaggerated parts possibly?

I'm playing devils advocate here.. none of its good
What happened before her top was removed? And why was she bleeding?
There was talk of her period and if there was hand penetration that could have done it, was a text from the ip saying to her friend that her period had come?

You're sick.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 04:30:36 PM
Nope I'm very healthy, was at the gym today! Feeling good. Few targets set for the year so feeling great..

You on the other hand is a sad individual with no mates and full of shit
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 04:44:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 03:32:04 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 02, 2018, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 10:30:13 AM
These are relatively well known (very well known in some circumstances) sportspeople. They'd have absolutely no problem getting their holes as and when they wanted. There's no way in hell they'd be lying about it to try and look cool in front of the lads.
Why wouldn't they lie? I know fellas in their 20s who have no problem pulling but that doesn't stop them exaggerating the truth now and again. You think just because they're relatively famous that they aren't capable of the same? Olding and Jackson are no show ponies, it's the same dynamic in any  whatsapp group, fellas will exaggerate their conquests from the weekend regardless of how much they earn

Ok, then just happened to lie about partaking in a specific act that a witness just happened to lie about seeing them partake in. Gotcha.
So you're basing it all on the text messages? Nothing about the girl taking her top off and performing oral (as witness said) without force! The only witness to say rape happened was the IP, no physical evidence that's stand out or other damming evidence other than the text, which don't back up their accounts. So they exaggerated parts possibly?

I'm playing devils advocate here.. none of its good


You're doing nothing of the sort. If you were, you'd have noticed that I've not cast my ballot one where our the other.

No, I'm basing it off texts (the ones that still exist, that is)) where the lads claimed to have spit roasted her, an act a third party claims to have 100% witnessed and then presented a different story for the cops only to have lads on here suggest that she because she didn't walk up and inside his dick entering her vagina, maybe it was all just a bit of flaccid fun.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 04:50:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 04:44:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 03:32:04 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 02, 2018, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 10:30:13 AM
These are relatively well known (very well known in some circumstances) sportspeople. They'd have absolutely no problem getting their holes as and when they wanted. There's no way in hell they'd be lying about it to try and look cool in front of the lads.
Why wouldn't they lie? I know fellas in their 20s who have no problem pulling but that doesn't stop them exaggerating the truth now and again. You think just because they're relatively famous that they aren't capable of the same? Olding and Jackson are no show ponies, it's the same dynamic in any  whatsapp group, fellas will exaggerate their conquests from the weekend regardless of how much they earn

Ok, then just happened to lie about partaking in a specific act that a witness just happened to lie about seeing them partake in. Gotcha.
So you're basing it all on the text messages? Nothing about the girl taking her top off and performing oral (as witness said) without force! The only witness to say rape happened was the IP, no physical evidence that's stand out or other damming evidence other than the text, which don't back up their accounts. So they exaggerated parts possibly?

I'm playing devils advocate here.. none of its good


You're doing nothing of the sort. If you were, you'd have noticed that I've not cast my ballot one where our the other.

No, I'm basing it off texts (the ones that still exist, that is)) where the lads claimed to have spit roasted her, an act a third party claims to have 100% witnessed and then presented a different story for the cops only to have lads on here suggest that she because she didn't walk up and inside his dick entering her vagina, maybe it was all just a bit of flaccid fun.

That witness also said she didn't see rape
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 02, 2018, 05:01:04 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 04:50:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 04:44:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 02, 2018, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 03:32:04 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 02, 2018, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 02, 2018, 10:30:13 AM
These are relatively well known (very well known in some circumstances) sportspeople. They'd have absolutely no problem getting their holes as and when they wanted. There's no way in hell they'd be lying about it to try and look cool in front of the lads.
Why wouldn't they lie? I know fellas in their 20s who have no problem pulling but that doesn't stop them exaggerating the truth now and again. You think just because they're relatively famous that they aren't capable of the same? Olding and Jackson are no show ponies, it's the same dynamic in any  whatsapp group, fellas will exaggerate their conquests from the weekend regardless of how much they earn

Ok, then just happened to lie about partaking in a specific act that a witness just happened to lie about seeing them partake in. Gotcha.
So you're basing it all on the text messages? Nothing about the girl taking her top off and performing oral (as witness said) without force! The only witness to say rape happened was the IP, no physical evidence that's stand out or other damming evidence other than the text, which don't back up their accounts. So they exaggerated parts possibly?

I'm playing devils advocate here.. none of its good


You're doing nothing of the sort. If you were, you'd have noticed that I've not cast my ballot one where our the other.

No, I'm basing it off texts (the ones that still exist, that is)) where the lads claimed to have spit roasted her, an act a third party claims to have 100% witnessed and then presented a different story for the cops only to have lads on here suggest that she because she didn't walk up and inside his dick entering her vagina, maybe it was all just a bit of flaccid fun.

That witness also said she didn't see rape

Nice attempt at editorialising.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 07:33:01 PM
Even if it were proven that Jackson did have penetrative sex with her, that wouldn't necessarily make it rape. There's still imo too much inconsistency in the girl's story and too much sloppiness on the part of the PSNI to convict Jackson or Olding beyond a reasonable doubt. Harrison and Mcillroy could end up being the ones who get convicted, despite their relatively minor roles in the whole thing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 08:02:45 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 07:33:01 PM
Even if it were proven that Jackson did have penetrative sex with her, that wouldn't necessarily make it rape. There's still imo too much inconsistency in the girl's story and too much sloppiness on the part of the PSNI to convict Jackson or Olding beyond a reasonable doubt. Harrison and Mcillroy could end up being the ones who get convicted, despite their relatively minor roles in the whole thing.
Trauma would explain the inconsistencies.
I think Jacko and Olding will be convicted.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 08:17:14 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 08:02:45 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 07:33:01 PM
Even if it were proven that Jackson did have penetrative sex with her, that wouldn't necessarily make it rape. There's still imo too much inconsistency in the girl's story and too much sloppiness on the part of the PSNI to convict Jackson or Olding beyond a reasonable doubt. Harrison and Mcillroy could end up being the ones who get convicted, despite their relatively minor roles in the whole thing.
Trauma would explain the inconsistencies.
I think Jacko and Olding will be convicted.
You're giving the girl all the benefit of the doubt seaf. Contradictions in her story are inconsistencies or omissions due to trauma. Contradictions in the men's stories are lies.

Will the jurors not be instructed to presume innocence as a starting point? You're assuming guilt by putting her inconsistencies down to trauma.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 08:27:32 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 08:17:14 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 02, 2018, 08:02:45 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 07:33:01 PM
Even if it were proven that Jackson did have penetrative sex with her, that wouldn't necessarily make it rape. There's still imo too much inconsistency in the girl's story and too much sloppiness on the part of the PSNI to convict Jackson or Olding beyond a reasonable doubt. Harrison and Mcillroy could end up being the ones who get convicted, despite their relatively minor roles in the whole thing.
Trauma would explain the inconsistencies.
I think Jacko and Olding will be convicted.
You're giving the girl all the benefit of the doubt seaf. Contradictions in her story are inconsistencies or omissions due to trauma. Contradictions in the men's stories are lies.

Will the jurors not be instructed to presume innocence as a starting point? You're assuming guilt by putting her inconsistencies down to trauma.
She left the house in a state. The tear in her vagina was not explained by the lads. I do think they are lying

It reminds me of a joke by Lenny Bruce

Why did the Jews kill Jesus?
Oh, it was just a party that got out of hand.

And another one

You put a guy on a desert island, he'll do it to mud, a chicken, a barrel, anything, a knothole.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 02, 2018, 08:37:10 PM
In a case of consent followed by feelings of humiliation, regret and anger she'd have left the house in a state. She could have sustained the tear in that situation too. I'm not seeing anything about this case that doesn't come with a reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 02, 2018, 08:48:19 PM
Was there any medical evidence called by the prosecution to say trauma can cause memory loss or explain inconsistencies. I would have expected there to have been some but I don't remember reading any reports about it but then again I may have just missed that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 02, 2018, 09:45:34 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 02, 2018, 08:48:19 PM
Was there any medical evidence called by the prosecution to say trauma can cause memory loss or explain inconsistencies. I would have expected there to have been some but I don't remember reading any reports about it but then again I may have just missed that.
You are correct there. You just  can't claim trauma shock etc as reasons for not responding to a rape without a professional providing a medical report.
There seems to be a lot of discrepancies in the P.S.N.I. investigation. You don't accept as truth something an alleged victim says. You only accept it when there is evidence to support it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 02, 2018, 10:52:53 PM
Sorry I wasn't implying anything by the question I just would have expected to see such evidence but haven't although I'm not sure if that's because none has be given or I've just missed the reports.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 03, 2018, 01:37:24 AM
If I were a juror, there's a couple of questions I'd like to see answered from a defence point of view (currently I'm leaning towards being guilty but not necessarily being found guilty)

How come two lads of this age didn't have condoms to hand?  (correct me of I'm wrong but I think two defendants left 'to get condoms')

Why did Harrison accompany the girl home?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 03, 2018, 07:44:42 AM
This is not ideal for the defendants

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/belfast-rape-trial-gains-insight-into-accuseds-mindset-1.3413426

The eight men and three woman (one juror was dismissed on Tuesday due to illness) heard WhatsApp exchanges between the accused in which they boasted and joked about their sexual activities. They also heard transcripts of the men describing to police, in measured and polite tones, their versions of what happened that night.

On Wednesday, prosecuting counsel Toby Hedworth QC spent about 90 minutes reading a list of text exchanges to the jury with the agreement of the defence lawyers. He also reminded the jury some of the texts had been deleted and later recovered.

Others remain irretrievable, meaning some of the conversations appear fragmented or out of order.

The jury has heard Harrison dropped the woman home in a taxi in the early hours of the morning after the alleged rape.

Later McIlroy texted Harrison asking: "What the f**k was going on? Last night was hilarious."

The reply from Harrison was deleted and not recovered but McIlroy replied: "really f**k sake" and "did you calm her and where did she live".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 03, 2018, 02:29:10 PM
Has Paddy Power opened a book on the verdict yet?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Square Ball on March 04, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
https://www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032?__twitter_impression=true
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mikhail Prokhorov on March 04, 2018, 12:55:02 PM
how can there be missing messages? these are easily recoverable from both the phone and whatsapp. PSNI are so incompetent.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 04, 2018, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: Mikhail Prokhorov on March 04, 2018, 12:55:02 PM
how can there be missing messages? these are easily recoverable from both the phone and whatsapp. PSNI are so incompetent.

They aren't recoverable from WhatsApp as far as I know and I doubt that the recovery of them from the phone would be admissible in court. To be honest I've had a lot of experience with the PSNI e crime unit in both my current job and my previous one. The unit is now very knowledgeable and tech savy I have to say.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: armaghniac on March 04, 2018, 01:12:57 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 04, 2018, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: Mikhail Prokhorov on March 04, 2018, 12:55:02 PM
how can there be missing messages? these are easily recoverable from both the phone and whatsapp. PSNI are so incompetent.

They aren't recoverable from WhatsApp as far as I know and I doubt that the recovery of them from the phone would be admissible in court. To be honest I've had a lot of experience with the PSNI e crime unit in both my current job and my previous one. The unit is now very knowledgeable and tech savy I have to say.

Graham Dwyer was largely prosecuted in Dublin for killing Elaine O'Hara on the basis of text messages. The providers are obliged to keep the messages, even if there was no phone available at all.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mikhail Prokhorov on March 04, 2018, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 04, 2018, 01:12:57 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 04, 2018, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: Mikhail Prokhorov on March 04, 2018, 12:55:02 PM
how can there be missing messages? these are easily recoverable from both the phone and whatsapp. PSNI are so incompetent.

They aren't recoverable from WhatsApp as far as I know and I doubt that the recovery of them from the phone would be admissible in court. To be honest I've had a lot of experience with the PSNI e crime unit in both my current job and my previous one. The unit is now very knowledgeable and tech savy I have to say.

Graham Dwyer was largely prosecuted in Dublin for killing Elaine O'Hara on the basis of text messages. The providers are obliged to keep the messages, even if there was no phone available at all.

correct. online footprint is forever, it's not written in pencil.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 04, 2018, 01:23:43 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 04, 2018, 01:12:57 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 04, 2018, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: Mikhail Prokhorov on March 04, 2018, 12:55:02 PM
how can there be missing messages? these are easily recoverable from both the phone and whatsapp. PSNI are so incompetent.

They aren't recoverable from WhatsApp as far as I know and I doubt that the recovery of them from the phone would be admissible in court. To be honest I've had a lot of experience with the PSNI e crime unit in both my current job and my previous one. The unit is now very knowledgeable and tech savy I have to say.

Graham Dwyer was largely prosecuted in Dublin for killing Elaine O'Hara on the basis of text messages. The providers are obliged to keep the messages, even if there was no phone available at all.

Currently being challenged.

http://www.thejournal.ie/graham-dwyer-telephone-records-3862022-Feb2018/
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 01:48:20 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 04, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
https://www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032?__twitter_impression=true
The prosecution are going down the character line.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 04, 2018, 01:50:17 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 04, 2018, 01:12:57 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 04, 2018, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: Mikhail Prokhorov on March 04, 2018, 12:55:02 PM
how can there be missing messages? these are easily recoverable from both the phone and whatsapp. PSNI are so incompetent.

They aren't recoverable from WhatsApp as far as I know and I doubt that the recovery of them from the phone would be admissible in court. To be honest I've had a lot of experience with the PSNI e crime unit in both my current job and my previous one. The unit is now very knowledgeable and tech savy I have to say.

Graham Dwyer was largely prosecuted in Dublin for killing Elaine O'Hara on the basis of text messages. The providers are obliged to keep the messages, even if there was no phone available at all.

Texts are very different to what's app though. What's app is encrypted point to point. What's app itself claims it can't recover or read messages after they are sent as far as I know.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hardy on March 04, 2018, 02:31:54 PM
I think the evidence against Dwyer was phone location data, proving he was at or near the scene, rather than texts.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: armaghniac on March 04, 2018, 04:51:32 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 04, 2018, 01:50:17 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 04, 2018, 01:12:57 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 04, 2018, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: Mikhail Prokhorov on March 04, 2018, 12:55:02 PM
how can there be missing messages? these are easily recoverable from both the phone and whatsapp. PSNI are so incompetent.

They aren't recoverable from WhatsApp as far as I know and I doubt that the recovery of them from the phone would be admissible in court. To be honest I've had a lot of experience with the PSNI e crime unit in both my current job and my previous one. The unit is now very knowledgeable and tech savy I have to say.

Graham Dwyer was largely prosecuted in Dublin for killing Elaine O'Hara on the basis of text messages. The providers are obliged to keep the messages, even if there was no phone available at all.

Texts are very different to what's app though. What's app is encrypted point to point. What's app itself claims it can't recover or read messages after they are sent as far as I know.

This is a difference, right enough.

Quote from: Hardy on March 04, 2018, 02:31:54 PM
I think the evidence against Dwyer was phone location data, proving he was at or near the scene, rather than texts.

The content of the texts were also important.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 04, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
https://www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032?__twitter_impression=true

Excellent stuff from joe.ie.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on March 04, 2018, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 04, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
https://www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032?__twitter_impression=true

Excellent stuff from joe.ie.

First time I have ever seen excellent and Joe.ie used in same sentence. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 04, 2018, 06:48:31 PM
Was thinking exactly that. Clickbait crap.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 04, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
https://www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032?__twitter_impression=true

Excellent stuff from joe.ie.
Reading the flow of messages I'm even more convinced they didn't rape her.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 04, 2018, 07:02:05 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.

They all do really.

I am not convinced they will be found guilty but they come across as scumbags anyway.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 07:05:23 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
They are definitely guilty of being arseholes but that isn't a criminal offence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 04, 2018, 07:13:52 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 07:05:23 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
They are definitely guilty of being arseholes but that isn't a criminal offence.

Rape is.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 07:20:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 04, 2018, 07:13:52 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 07:05:23 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
They are definitely guilty of being arseholes but that isn't a criminal offence.

Rape is.
Further evidence that you are the greatest legal mind in Ireland.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 04, 2018, 07:31:01 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 07:20:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 04, 2018, 07:13:52 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 07:05:23 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
They are definitely guilty of being arseholes but that isn't a criminal offence.

Rape is.
Further evidence that you are the greatest legal mind in Ireland.

Someone's a bit touchy.

It's pretty clear there was a cover up. I can't see how you can read the evidence and think otherwise.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 07:32:24 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
I was thinking the same. Immature and no respect for women. Arrogant as well.
The deleted texts.  They contradict each other in places.  A poor cover-up. 

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 07:32:24 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
I was thinking the same. Immature and no respect for women. Arrogant as well.
The deleted texts.  They contradict each other in places.  A poor cover-up.

Surely only a cover up if found guilty? Or have you Judge it already?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 04, 2018, 07:45:28 PM
What cover-up are you seeing lads? I've read the messages too and as Tony said they only prove that the lads are arseholes. Yes there were deleted messages but other deleted messages that have been recovered just show more of the same. They clearly believed they'd done nothing wrong and that the girl had gone along with it and just regretted it afterwards. All the retrieved messages are consistent with that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 07:47:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 07:32:24 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
I was thinking the same. Immature and no respect for women. Arrogant as well.
The deleted texts.  They contradict each other in places.  A poor cover-up.

Surely only a cover up if found guilty? Or have you Judge it already?

The evidence he destroyed could well get the others off the hook but it could still be construed as him withholding evidence.

Another interesting point to note is that she did not know Stuart Olding's name the following morning when her friend asked her who did it. Generally speaking consenting adults know who they are sleeping with.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:50:25 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 07:47:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 07:32:24 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
I was thinking the same. Immature and no respect for women. Arrogant as well.
The deleted texts.  They contradict each other in places.  A poor cover-up.

Surely only a cover up if found guilty? Or have you Judge it already?

The evidence he destroyed could well get the others off the hook but it could still be construed as him withholding evidence.

Another interesting point to note is that she did not know Stuart Olding's name the following morning when her friend asked her who did it. Generally speaking consenting adults know who they are sleeping with.

So can you name all the girls you slept with? I can remember the last 3 I think
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 07:53:03 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 07:32:24 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
I was thinking the same. Immature and no respect for women. Arrogant as well.
The deleted texts.  They contradict each other in places.  A poor cover-up.

Surely only a cover up if found guilty? Or have you Judge it already?
I have been following it and I think they are guilty.
This is a really sensitive case given the prosecution QC had to be flown over from London. Presumaby it wouldn't go down well on the Short Strand and othet mythologies if a local was responsible for sending the boys to jail
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 04, 2018, 07:56:38 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:50:25 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 07:47:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 07:32:24 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
I was thinking the same. Immature and no respect for women. Arrogant as well.
The deleted texts.  They contradict each other in places.  A poor cover-up.

Surely only a cover up if found guilty? Or have you Judge it already?

The evidence he destroyed could well get the others off the hook but it could still be construed as him withholding evidence.

Another interesting point to note is that she did not know Stuart Olding's name the following morning when her friend asked her who did it. Generally speaking consenting adults know who they are sleeping with.

So can you name all the girls you slept with? I can remember the last 3 I think

You don't remember their names 12 hours later?

Your attempts to defend likely rapists have reached the macabrely comical now.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 08:10:12 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 04, 2018, 07:56:38 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:50:25 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 07:47:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 07:32:24 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
I was thinking the same. Immature and no respect for women. Arrogant as well.
The deleted texts.  They contradict each other in places.  A poor cover-up.

Surely only a cover up if found guilty? Or have you Judge it already?

The evidence he destroyed could well get the others off the hook but it could still be construed as him withholding evidence.

Another interesting point to note is that she did not know Stuart Olding's name the following morning when her friend asked her who did it. Generally speaking consenting adults know who they are sleeping with.

So can you name all the girls you slept with? I can remember the last 3 I think

You don't remember their names 12 hours later?

Your attempts to defend likely rapists have reached the macabrely comical now.

I know you're next one will be the first so you'll remember the name.. but I've went home in the morning and forgot their names, I probably even called them by a different name that night! You ever been on a holiday with your mates before?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 08:11:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:50:25 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 07:47:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 07:32:24 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
I was thinking the same. Immature and no respect for women. Arrogant as well.
The deleted texts.  They contradict each other in places.  A poor cover-up.

Surely only a cover up if found guilty? Or have you Judge it already?

The evidence he destroyed could well get the others off the hook but it could still be construed as him withholding evidence.

Another interesting point to note is that she did not know Stuart Olding's name the following morning when her friend asked her who did it. Generally speaking consenting adults know who they are sleeping with.

So can you name all the girls you slept with? I can remember the last 3 I think
I wouldn't have had you down as a regular Ollies punter , MR. Most of the birds would have no interest in Brexit .
Are you comparing like with like, like?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 08:12:23 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 08:11:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:50:25 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 07:47:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 07:32:24 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
I was thinking the same. Immature and no respect for women. Arrogant as well.
The deleted texts.  They contradict each other in places.  A poor cover-up.

Surely only a cover up if found guilty? Or have you Judge it already?

The evidence he destroyed could well get the others off the hook but it could still be construed as him withholding evidence.

Another interesting point to note is that she did not know Stuart Olding's name the following morning when her friend asked her who did it. Generally speaking consenting adults know who they are sleeping with.

So can you name all the girls you slept with? I can remember the last 3 I think
I wouldn't have had yourd own as a regular Ollies punter , MR. Most of the birds would have no interest in Brexit .
Are you comparing like with like, like?

Brexit? There was a war going on when I was growing up
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 04, 2018, 08:15:57 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 08:10:12 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 04, 2018, 07:56:38 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:50:25 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 07:47:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 07:32:24 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
I was thinking the same. Immature and no respect for women. Arrogant as well.
The deleted texts.  They contradict each other in places.  A poor cover-up.

Surely only a cover up if found guilty? Or have you Judge it already?

The evidence he destroyed could well get the others off the hook but it could still be construed as him withholding evidence.

Another interesting point to note is that she did not know Stuart Olding's name the following morning when her friend asked her who did it. Generally speaking consenting adults know who they are sleeping with.

So can you name all the girls you slept with? I can remember the last 3 I think

You don't remember their names 12 hours later?

Your attempts to defend likely rapists have reached the macabrely comical now.

I know you're next one will be the first so you'll remember the name.. but I've went home in the morning and forgot their names, I probably even called them by a different name that night! You ever been on a holiday with your mates before?

I don't really want to know what your idea of a normal holiday is.

This trial seems to cut you very deep. Maybe look inward rather than outward for the reasons for that and you might learn to be a more empathetic person.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 08:21:34 PM
Normal holiday?

As for the trial I've already said, numerous times, I really don't care, it makes no difference to my life or I'd imagine 99% of the posters on here. You though have lost the plot many times
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on March 05, 2018, 01:48:49 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 04, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
https://www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032?__twitter_impression=true

Excellent stuff from joe.ie.
Reading the flow of messages I'm even more convinced they didn't rape her.

I'd believe so too. Some strange behaviour on her part. "Lol", "got raped, brilliant night". Whilst you can make an argument in favour of her non-resistance as a manifestation of the horror she was enduring, I'm just not sure how you can present sarcasm as a typical response to a rape event.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitey on March 05, 2018, 02:01:04 AM
Id say theyll skate.....too many inconsistencies

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 02:26:59 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 05, 2018, 01:48:49 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 04, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
https://www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032?__twitter_impression=true

Excellent stuff from joe.ie.
Reading the flow of messages I'm even more convinced they didn't rape her.

I'd believe so too. Some strange behaviour on her part. "Lol", "got raped, brilliant night". Whilst you can make an argument in favour of her non-resistance as a manifestation of the horror she was enduring, I'm just not sure how you can present sarcasm as a typical response to a rape event.

I'm not going to even bother to try to unpack that absolute garbage of a post.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: charlieTully on March 05, 2018, 02:39:42 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 07:53:03 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 04, 2018, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 04, 2018, 07:32:24 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I came to the opposite conclusion myself.
The victim's behaviour is completely that of a victim and while there isn't a whole lot of insight into the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding's thought process in the aftermath there does seem to be a clean up centred around Harrison. McIlroy shows himself to be a clown and a sc**bag whether guilty or not.
I was thinking the same. Immature and no respect for women. Arrogant as well.
The deleted texts.  They contradict each other in places.  A poor cover-up.

Surely only a cover up if found guilty? Or have you Judge it already?
I have been following it and I think they are guilty.
This is a really sensitive case given the prosecution QC had to be flown over from London. Presumaby it wouldn't go down well on the Short Strand and othet mythologies if a local was responsible for sending the boys to jail

You can be pretty sure not many folk from the short strand will care either way. It's hardly an Ulster rugby stronghold or am I missing something in your post?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 05, 2018, 07:57:23 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 05, 2018, 01:48:49 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 04, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
https://www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032?__twitter_impression=true

Excellent stuff from joe.ie.
Reading the flow of messages I'm even more convinced they didn't rape her.

I'd believe so too. Some strange behaviour on her part. "Lol", "got raped, brilliant night". Whilst you can make an argument in favour of her non-resistance as a manifestation of the horror she was enduring, I'm just not sure how you can present sarcasm as a typical response to a rape event.
How do you know it isn't? The psychological aspects of being raped might explain a lot of the inconsistencies
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 08:04:11 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 05, 2018, 07:57:23 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 05, 2018, 01:48:49 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 04, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
https://www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032?__twitter_impression=true

Excellent stuff from joe.ie.
Reading the flow of messages I'm even more convinced they didn't rape her.

I'd believe so too. Some strange behaviour on her part. "Lol", "got raped, brilliant night". Whilst you can make an argument in favour of her non-resistance as a manifestation of the horror she was enduring, I'm just not sure how you can present sarcasm as a typical response to a rape event.
How do you know it isn't? The psychological aspects of being raped might explain a lot of the inconsistencies

Just use that line every time and we'll save the tax payer a fortune
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 05, 2018, 08:13:39 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 08:04:11 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 05, 2018, 07:57:23 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 05, 2018, 01:48:49 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 04, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
https://www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032?__twitter_impression=true

Excellent stuff from joe.ie.
Reading the flow of messages I'm even more convinced they didn't rape her.

I'd believe so too. Some strange behaviour on her part. "Lol", "got raped, brilliant night". Whilst you can make an argument in favour of her non-resistance as a manifestation of the horror she was enduring, I'm just not sure how you can present sarcasm as a typical response to a rape event.
How do you know it isn't? The psychological aspects of being raped might explain a lot of the inconsistencies

Just use that line every time and we'll save the tax payer a fortune

Was waiting for the psychological line myself.  I imagine if she came out and claimed she wasn't raped that someone here would say she was and that psychological research would back this up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 09:32:58 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 05, 2018, 08:13:39 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 08:04:11 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 05, 2018, 07:57:23 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 05, 2018, 01:48:49 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 04, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
https://www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032?__twitter_impression=true

Excellent stuff from joe.ie.
Reading the flow of messages I'm even more convinced they didn't rape her.

I'd believe so too. Some strange behaviour on her part. "Lol", "got raped, brilliant night". Whilst you can make an argument in favour of her non-resistance as a manifestation of the horror she was enduring, I'm just not sure how you can present sarcasm as a typical response to a rape event.
How do you know it isn't? The psychological aspects of being raped might explain a lot of the inconsistencies

Just use that line every time and we'll save the tax payer a fortune

Was waiting for the psychological line myself. I imagine if she came out and claimed she wasn't raped that someone here would say she was and that psychological research would back this up.
This is true.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 09:41:46 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 05, 2018, 01:48:49 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 04, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
https://www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032?__twitter_impression=true

Excellent stuff from joe.ie.
Reading the flow of messages I'm even more convinced they didn't rape her.

I'd believe so too. Some strange behaviour on her part. "Lol", "got raped, brilliant night". Whilst you can make an argument in favour of her non-resistance as a manifestation of the horror she was enduring, I'm just not sure how you can present sarcasm as a typical response to a rape event.
She sounds pissed off but not traumatised and certainly not traumatised enough to forget to mention that another girl walked in to the middle of the alleged rape, when being interviewed by police.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 09:44:46 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 05, 2018, 08:13:39 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 08:04:11 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 05, 2018, 07:57:23 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 05, 2018, 01:48:49 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 04, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
https://www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032?__twitter_impression=true

Excellent stuff from joe.ie.
Reading the flow of messages I'm even more convinced they didn't rape her.

I'd believe so too. Some strange behaviour on her part. "Lol", "got raped, brilliant night". Whilst you can make an argument in favour of her non-resistance as a manifestation of the horror she was enduring, I'm just not sure how you can present sarcasm as a typical response to a rape event.
How do you know it isn't? The psychological aspects of being raped might explain a lot of the inconsistencies

Just use that line every time and we'll save the tax payer a fortune

Was waiting for the psychological line myself. I imagine if she came out and claimed she wasn't raped that someone here would say she was and that psychological research would back this up.

Yeah, and others would be in the public gallery gloating during her perjury trial.  To be fair to the alleged victim, she's been consistent in her assertion that she was raped that night including during her 5 or 6 days on the witness stand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 09:53:23 AM
The lads have been consistent in their assertion that they didn't. It's the inconsistencies/lies in the detailsthat are important.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 09:53:23 AM
The lads have been consistent in their assertion that they didn't. It's the inconsistencies/lies in the detailsthat are important.

The "lads" haven't told the jury anything.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: FermGael on March 05, 2018, 10:04:18 AM
And from what I am see they don't be.
They won't take the stand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on March 05, 2018, 10:09:48 AM
Reporter on Newstalk this morning felt there was a good chance they would take the stand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 10:13:34 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 05, 2018, 10:09:48 AM
Reporter on Newstalk this morning felt there was a good chance they would take the stand.

Difficult to say from where we are.  Obviously the legal teams will have a good feel about how the case is playing out inside the court.  There are arguments in favour of giving evidence or not but not taking the stand seems to be the high risk/high reward option.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 05, 2018, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 10:13:34 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 05, 2018, 10:09:48 AM
Reporter on Newstalk this morning felt there was a good chance they would take the stand.

Difficult to say from where we are.  Obviously the legal teams will have a good feel about how the case is playing out inside the court.  There are arguments in favour of giving evidence or not but not taking the stand seems to be the high risk/high reward one
They can call other witnesses too. I'd imagine at that stage they'll try to read where they are and if they think they are winning, they won't go up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 10:16:28 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 05, 2018, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 10:13:34 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 05, 2018, 10:09:48 AM
Reporter on Newstalk this morning felt there was a good chance they would take the stand.

Difficult to say from where we are.  Obviously the legal teams will have a good feel about how the case is playing out inside the court.  There are arguments in favour of giving evidence or not but not taking the stand seems to be the high risk/high reward one
They can call other witnesses too. I'd imagine at that stage they'll try to read where they are and if they think they are winning, they won't go up.

I read over the weekend that they can call character witnesses at this stage?  Cue Rory Best??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 10:21:04 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 09:53:23 AM
The lads have been consistent in their assertion that they didn't. It's the inconsistencies/lies in the detailsthat are important.

The "lads" haven't told the jury anything.
They are denying the charges though.

If they do take the stand, I'd doubt you'll be giving them credit for being consistent in their denial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 10:22:42 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 10:16:28 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 05, 2018, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 10:13:34 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 05, 2018, 10:09:48 AM
Reporter on Newstalk this morning felt there was a good chance they would take the stand.

Difficult to say from where we are.  Obviously the legal teams will have a good feel about how the case is playing out inside the court.  There are arguments in favour of giving evidence or not but not taking the stand seems to be the high risk/high reward one
They can call other witnesses too. I'd imagine at that stage they'll try to read where they are and if they think they are winning, they won't go up.

I read over the weekend that they can call character witnesses at this stage?  Cue Rory Best??

I can't see too many character witnesses wanting to be going in with the top shaggers to be honest! split roasting and all the rest wont sit well with most people
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 10:30:46 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 10:22:42 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 10:16:28 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 05, 2018, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 10:13:34 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 05, 2018, 10:09:48 AM
Reporter on Newstalk this morning felt there was a good chance they would take the stand.

Difficult to say from where we are.  Obviously the legal teams will have a good feel about how the case is playing out inside the court.  There are arguments in favour of giving evidence or not but not taking the stand seems to be the high risk/high reward one
They can call other witnesses too. I'd imagine at that stage they'll try to read where they are and if they think they are winning, they won't go up.

I read over the weekend that they can call character witnesses at this stage?  Cue Rory Best??

I can't see too many character witnesses wanting to be going in with the top shaggers to be honest! split roasting and all the rest wont sit well with most people
In the #metoo era it would be an act of social suicide. A pointless exercise anyway. The messages show they have zero respect for their conquests, but that doesn't make them rapists.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 10:57:29 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 10:21:04 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 09:53:23 AM
The lads have been consistent in their assertion that they didn't. It's the inconsistencies/lies in the detailsthat are important.

The "lads" haven't told the jury anything.
They are denying the charges though.

If they do take the stand, I'd doubt you'll be giving them credit for being consistent in their denial.

If they do give evidence I'll wait and see what the accused say.  Probably ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LeoMc on March 05, 2018, 11:00:29 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 10:13:34 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 05, 2018, 10:09:48 AM
Reporter on Newstalk this morning felt there was a good chance they would take the stand.

Difficult to say from where we are.  Obviously the legal teams will have a good feel about how the case is playing out inside the court.  There are arguments in favour of giving evidence or not but not taking the stand seems to be the high risk/high reward option.

High risk and I do not see any upside to it. Unless they are able to provide a very credible argument that they reasonably believed consent was given they are on a hiding to nothing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 05, 2018, 11:06:00 AM
I think their best chance is to not take the stand. I'd be amazed if they did. Harrison might if he thinks he's goosed.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 05, 2018, 11:26:33 AM
I honestly believe that Jackson and Olding would be really foolish to take the stand. Once up there they leave themselves wide open to be caught out in cross examination. Also they would be crucified for their 'lad' behaviour and will come across as even bigger scumbags than they already are. It's one thing to type 'top shagger' but to be made say it....and the Prosecution would have them repeating those types of statements. Your decision making process is influenced mostly by what you hear.

People say how she has been consistent but it's easy for one person to have a straight story. All the defendants may have differing versions of the same set of facts but can all be telling the truth.  Her reaction the next day is unusual. Their reaction the next day is similar to that of many shit heads. I simply think that to get this above reasonable doubt there needs to be stronger independent evidence and that is not there in my opinion.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Excellent post bcb and the Jackson and Olding defence teams would have to be confident that they've done enough to have at least raised a reasonable doubt.

I think Mcillroy will be found guilty of exposure.

Uncharacteristically good point from Seanie that Harrison might be the only one who would benefit from taking the stand, but I'd be interested to hear bcb's or David's views on that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Excellent post bcb and the Jackson and Olding defence teams would have to be confident that they've done enough to have at least raised a reasonable doubt.

I think Mcillroy will be found guilty of exposure.

Uncharacteristically good point from Seanie that Harrison might be the only one who would benefit from taking the stand, but I'd be interested to hear bcb's or David's views on that.

If he takes the stand then he'll be hammered, plus it will hamper the others surely?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 05, 2018, 11:26:33 AM
I honestly believe that Jackson and Olding would be really foolish to take the stand. Once up there they leave themselves wide open to be caught out in cross examination. Also they would be crucified for their 'lad' behaviour and will come across as even bigger scumbags than they already are. It's one thing to type 'top shagger' but to be made say it....and the Prosecution would have them repeating those types of statements. Your decision making process is influenced mostly by what you hear.

People say how she has been consistent but it's easy for one person to have a straight story. All the defendants may have differing versions of the same set of facts but can all be telling the truth.  Her reaction the next day is unusual. Their reaction the next day is similar to that of many shit heads. I simply think that to get this above reasonable doubt there needs to be stronger independent evidence and that is not there in my opinion.

Conversely any good prosecution team can use them not taking the stand to savage them in the closing arguments. The reason they're in a no-win situation is because they're very likely guilty of a crime.

Asal Mor's open contempt for movements like MeToo that has exposed systematic levels of sexual assault in western society really highlight what sort of person he is.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 11:58:01 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Excellent post bcb and the Jackson and Olding defence teams would have to be confident that they've done enough to have at least raised a reasonable doubt.

I think Mcillroy will be found guilty of exposure.

Uncharacteristically good point from Seanie that Harrison might be the only one who would benefit from taking the stand, but I'd be interested to hear bcb's or David's views on that.

See we can agree AM!  I said last week that to my untrained mind and having heard about 2% of the evidence the case against Harrison seems the strongest.  Perverting the course of justice and withholding info can carry a custodial sentence.  Given he wasn't directly involved in the alleged incidents and that the alleged victim had no complaints about his behaviour, he might be giving it serious thought if he's looking at a spell in Maghaberry?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:00:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Excellent post bcb and the Jackson and Olding defence teams would have to be confident that they've done enough to have at least raised a reasonable doubt.

I think Mcillroy will be found guilty of exposure.

Uncharacteristically good point from Seanie that Harrison might be the only one who would benefit from taking the stand, but I'd be interested to hear bcb's or David's views on that.

If he takes the stand then he'll be hammered, plus it will hamper the others surely?

If I were Harrison I wouldn't be too concerned about the others.  I'll bet the other three don't give a feck about him.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 12:16:14 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 11:58:01 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Excellent post bcb and the Jackson and Olding defence teams would have to be confident that they've done enough to have at least raised a reasonable doubt.

I think Mcillroy will be found guilty of exposure.

Uncharacteristically good point from Seanie that Harrison might be the only one who would benefit from taking the stand, but I'd be interested to hear bcb's or David's views on that.

See we can agree AM!  I said last week that to my untrained mind and having heard about 2% of the evidence the case against Harrison seems the strongest.  Perverting the course of justice and withholding info can carry a custodial sentence.  Given he wasn't directly involved in the alleged incidents and that the alleged victim had no complaints about his behaviour, he might be giving it serious thought if he's looking at a spell in Maghaberry?

Is he the one responsible for deleting texts and whatsapp messages?

If he is, then surely the other users would need to have done the same, no?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 05, 2018, 12:16:30 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 05, 2018, 11:26:33 AM
I honestly believe that Jackson and Olding would be really foolish to take the stand. Once up there they leave themselves wide open to be caught out in cross examination. Also they would be crucified for their 'lad' behaviour and will come across as even bigger scumbags than they already are. It's one thing to type 'top shagger' but to be made say it....and the Prosecution would have them repeating those types of statements. Your decision making process is influenced mostly by what you hear.

People say how she has been consistent but it's easy for one person to have a straight story. All the defendants may have differing versions of the same set of facts but can all be telling the truth.  Her reaction the next day is unusual. Their reaction the next day is similar to that of many shit heads. I simply think that to get this above reasonable doubt there needs to be stronger independent evidence and that is not there in my opinion.

Conversely any good prosecution team can use them not taking the stand to savage them in the closing arguments. The reason they're in a no-win situation is because they're very likely guilty of a crime.

I don't agree. As it stands they have given a version of events in their interviews. This can be dissected but they deny rape and that's all they have to do. The only adverse inferences that can be drawn is if they made no comment whatsoever. They have given their side of the story
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 12:24:42 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 05, 2018, 12:16:30 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 05, 2018, 11:26:33 AM
I honestly believe that Jackson and Olding would be really foolish to take the stand. Once up there they leave themselves wide open to be caught out in cross examination. Also they would be crucified for their 'lad' behaviour and will come across as even bigger scumbags than they already are. It's one thing to type 'top shagger' but to be made say it....and the Prosecution would have them repeating those types of statements. Your decision making process is influenced mostly by what you hear.

People say how she has been consistent but it's easy for one person to have a straight story. All the defendants may have differing versions of the same set of facts but can all be telling the truth.  Her reaction the next day is unusual. Their reaction the next day is similar to that of many shit heads. I simply think that to get this above reasonable doubt there needs to be stronger independent evidence and that is not there in my opinion.

Conversely any good prosecution team can use them not taking the stand to savage them in the closing arguments. The reason they're in a no-win situation is because they're very likely guilty of a crime.

I don't agree. As it stands they have given a version of events in their interviews. This can be dissected but they deny rape and that's all they have to do. The only adverse inferences that can be drawn is if they made no comment whatsoever. They have given their side of the story

..in the most obviously managed way possible. And even then they were massively inconsistent from interview to interview. Not a good look whatever angle you take on the "lads".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:31:54 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 12:16:14 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 11:58:01 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Excellent post bcb and the Jackson and Olding defence teams would have to be confident that they've done enough to have at least raised a reasonable doubt.

I think Mcillroy will be found guilty of exposure.

Uncharacteristically good point from Seanie that Harrison might be the only one who would benefit from taking the stand, but I'd be interested to hear bcb's or David's views on that.

See we can agree AM!  I said last week that to my untrained mind and having heard about 2% of the evidence the case against Harrison seems the strongest.  Perverting the course of justice and withholding info can carry a custodial sentence.  Given he wasn't directly involved in the alleged incidents and that the alleged victim had no complaints about his behaviour, he might be giving it serious thought if he's looking at a spell in Maghaberry?

Is he the one responsible for deleting texts and whatsapp messages?

If he is, then surely the other users would need to have done the same, no?

Maybe, but they're not charged with perverting the course of justice, only Harrison (I think)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 05, 2018, 12:35:14 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:00:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Excellent post bcb and the Jackson and Olding defence teams would have to be confident that they've done enough to have at least raised a reasonable doubt.

I think Mcillroy will be found guilty of exposure.

Uncharacteristically good point from Seanie that Harrison might be the only one who would benefit from taking the stand, but I'd be interested to hear bcb's or David's views on that.

If he takes the stand then he'll be hammered, plus it will hamper the others surely?

If I were Harrison I wouldn't be too concerned about the others.  I'll bet the other three don't give a feck about him.

There's also the possibility (not sure if it's big or little) that he tries to shop the others to save himself. I've had a hunch for a while that the prosecution may have been hoping for this.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 12:38:48 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 05, 2018, 12:35:14 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:00:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Excellent post bcb and the Jackson and Olding defence teams would have to be confident that they've done enough to have at least raised a reasonable doubt.

I think Mcillroy will be found guilty of exposure.

Uncharacteristically good point from Seanie that Harrison might be the only one who would benefit from taking the stand, but I'd be interested to hear bcb's or David's views on that.

If he takes the stand then he'll be hammered, plus it will hamper the others surely?

If I were Harrison I wouldn't be too concerned about the others.  I'll bet the other three don't give a feck about him.

There's also the possibility (not sure if it's big or little) that he tries to shop the others to save himself. I've had a hunch for a while that the prosecution may have been hoping for this.

Thats what i would have thought, but was he in the bedroom at anytime and did any of the witnesses mention seeing him in the room?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:45:48 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 12:38:48 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 05, 2018, 12:35:14 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:00:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Excellent post bcb and the Jackson and Olding defence teams would have to be confident that they've done enough to have at least raised a reasonable doubt.

I think Mcillroy will be found guilty of exposure.

Uncharacteristically good point from Seanie that Harrison might be the only one who would benefit from taking the stand, but I'd be interested to hear bcb's or David's views on that.

If he takes the stand then he'll be hammered, plus it will hamper the others surely?

If I were Harrison I wouldn't be too concerned about the others.  I'll bet the other three don't give a feck about him.

There's also the possibility (not sure if it's big or little) that he tries to shop the others to save himself. I've had a hunch for a while that the prosecution may have been hoping for this.

Thats what i would have thought, but was he in the bedroom at anytime and did any of the witnesses mention seeing him in the room?

It's hard to keep track of all the texts and WhatsApps but didn't he make some comment about, "was upstairs last night, more flutes than on 12th July"? Or was that McIlroy??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 12:56:28 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 12:38:48 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 05, 2018, 12:35:14 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:00:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Excellent post bcb and the Jackson and Olding defence teams would have to be confident that they've done enough to have at least raised a reasonable doubt.

I think Mcillroy will be found guilty of exposure.

Uncharacteristically good point from Seanie that Harrison might be the only one who would benefit from taking the stand, but I'd be interested to hear bcb's or David's views on that.

If he takes the stand then he'll be hammered, plus it will hamper the others surely?

If I were Harrison I wouldn't be too concerned about the others.  I'll bet the other three don't give a feck about him.

There's also the possibility (not sure if it's big or little) that he tries to shop the others to save himself. I've had a hunch for a while that the prosecution may have been hoping for this.

Thats what i would have thought, but was he in the bedroom at anytime and did any of the witnesses mention seeing him in the room?

He covered up the fûcking rapes. Let's just say if he spills the beans its good night and good riddance to your two favourite hobby horses.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:57:44 PM
Juror sick, so jury sent home for the day.  A decision to be made later today about how to proceed.  Jury has been asked to sit next Saturday morning. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 01:02:43 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 12:56:28 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 12:38:48 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 05, 2018, 12:35:14 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:00:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Excellent post bcb and the Jackson and Olding defence teams would have to be confident that they've done enough to have at least raised a reasonable doubt.

I think Mcillroy will be found guilty of exposure.

Uncharacteristically good point from Seanie that Harrison might be the only one who would benefit from taking the stand, but I'd be interested to hear bcb's or David's views on that.

If he takes the stand then he'll be hammered, plus it will hamper the others surely?

If I were Harrison I wouldn't be too concerned about the others.  I'll bet the other three don't give a feck about him.

There's also the possibility (not sure if it's big or little) that he tries to shop the others to save himself. I've had a hunch for a while that the prosecution may have been hoping for this.

Thats what i would have thought, but was he in the bedroom at anytime and did any of the witnesses mention seeing him in the room?

He covered up the fûcking rapes. Let's just say if he spills the beans its good night and good riddance to your two favourite hobby horses.

Jesus!! you really have lost the run of yourself, probably frothing at the mouth as i type! Nice term there, hobby horses! come away from the computer as its not good for your health and wellbeing
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on March 05, 2018, 01:03:05 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:45:48 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 12:38:48 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 05, 2018, 12:35:14 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:00:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Excellent post bcb and the Jackson and Olding defence teams would have to be confident that they've done enough to have at least raised a reasonable doubt.

I think Mcillroy will be found guilty of exposure.

Uncharacteristically good point from Seanie that Harrison might be the only one who would benefit from taking the stand, but I'd be interested to hear bcb's or David's views on that.

If he takes the stand then he'll be hammered, plus it will hamper the others surely?

If I were Harrison I wouldn't be too concerned about the others.  I'll bet the other three don't give a feck about him.

There's also the possibility (not sure if it's big or little) that he tries to shop the others to save himself. I've had a hunch for a while that the prosecution may have been hoping for this.

Thats what i would have thought, but was he in the bedroom at anytime and did any of the witnesses mention seeing him in the room?

It's hard to keep track of all the texts and WhatsApps but didn't he make some comment about, "was upstairs last night, more flutes than on 12th July"? Or was that McIlroy??
According to joe.ie it was Harrison that said that. Haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that he entered the room though?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 01:05:50 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 11:58:01 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Excellent post bcb and the Jackson and Olding defence teams would have to be confident that they've done enough to have at least raised a reasonable doubt.

I think Mcillroy will be found guilty of exposure.

Uncharacteristically good point from Seanie that Harrison might be the only one who would benefit from taking the stand, but I'd be interested to hear bcb's or David's views on that.

See we can agree AM!  I said last week that to my untrained mind and having heard about 2% of the evidence the case against Harrison seems the strongest.  Perverting the course of justice and withholding info can carry a custodial sentence.  Given he wasn't directly involved in the alleged incidents and that the alleged victim had no complaints about his behaviour, he might be giving it serious thought if he's looking at a spell in Maghaberry?
He's the only sympathetic figure of the 4. He was caught in the middle of a horrible situation and morally I'd have no issue with his actions assuming he believed that it was a case of regret rather than rape. Impossible to see how he won't be found guilty as charged though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 01:08:39 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 05, 2018, 01:03:05 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:45:48 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 12:38:48 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 05, 2018, 12:35:14 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:00:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Excellent post bcb and the Jackson and Olding defence teams would have to be confident that they've done enough to have at least raised a reasonable doubt.

I think Mcillroy will be found guilty of exposure.

Uncharacteristically good point from Seanie that Harrison might be the only one who would benefit from taking the stand, but I'd be interested to hear bcb's or David's views on that.

If he takes the stand then he'll be hammered, plus it will hamper the others surely?

If I were Harrison I wouldn't be too concerned about the others.  I'll bet the other three don't give a feck about him.

There's also the possibility (not sure if it's big or little) that he tries to shop the others to save himself. I've had a hunch for a while that the prosecution may have been hoping for this.

Thats what i would have thought, but was he in the bedroom at anytime and did any of the witnesses mention seeing him in the room?

It's hard to keep track of all the texts and WhatsApps but didn't he make some comment about, "was upstairs last night, more flutes than on 12th July"? Or was that McIlroy??
According to joe.ie it was Harrison that said that. Haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that he entered the room though?
I suppose this highlights the risks for Harrison giving evidence on his own behalf.  Where did he see the flutes, whose were they and what were they doing!?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 05, 2018, 01:08:59 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 01:02:43 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 12:56:28 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 12:38:48 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 05, 2018, 12:35:14 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:00:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
Excellent post bcb and the Jackson and Olding defence teams would have to be confident that they've done enough to have at least raised a reasonable doubt.

I think Mcillroy will be found guilty of exposure.

Uncharacteristically good point from Seanie that Harrison might be the only one who would benefit from taking the stand, but I'd be interested to hear bcb's or David's views on that.

If he takes the stand then he'll be hammered, plus it will hamper the others surely?

If I were Harrison I wouldn't be too concerned about the others.  I'll bet the other three don't give a feck about him.

There's also the possibility (not sure if it's big or little) that he tries to shop the others to save himself. I've had a hunch for a while that the prosecution may have been hoping for this.

Thats what i would have thought, but was he in the bedroom at anytime and did any of the witnesses mention seeing him in the room?

He covered up the fûcking rapes. Let's just say if he spills the beans its good night and good riddance to your two favourite hobby horses.

Jesus!! you really have lost the run of yourself, probably frothing at the mouth as i type! Nice term there, hobby horses! come away from the computer as its not good for your health and wellbeing

And with that the case is closed. They are guilty and he covered them up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 05, 2018, 01:10:56 PM
Whether they take the stand or not will be a matter for each of them individually with the advice of very experienced legal teams. Not taking the stand is now a far bigger risk than it used to be in terms of what inferences can and can not be drawn (and without knowing exactly what's been said and by whom in this trial I wouldn't be able to go through exactly what inferences can and can not be drawn.)
What I will say is that this trial is supposedly behind schedule with 2 weeks of evidence left. I would only imagine that to be the case if all defendants were expected to give evidence although it may well just be tactical to make it look like that is the plan.

As for Harrison I've yet to see the crucial piece of evidence as to how deleting messages amounts to perverting the course of justice unless he did it after he knew that they were or were likely to be evidence in the case. Again I assume evidence was lead on this but as yet I haven't seen it so I am very confused as to what precisely the case against him is.

As for McIlroy the evidence against him from what I have read is the evidence of the injured party. I don't foresee a scenario where he is acquitted and PJ is convicted. That would require the jury to effectively say we don't believe you about what happened with McIlroy but we do believe you about what happened with PJ.

As always I caveat this post with the usual provisio that I haven't seen all the evidence in the case.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 05, 2018, 01:13:14 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 05, 2018, 11:06:00 AM
I think their best chance is to not take the stand. I'd be amazed if they did. Harrison might if he thinks he's goosed.
It would be strange if the top shaggers were not guilty and Harrison was done for covering up nothing
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 01:18:21 PM
@David McKeown, David, in your experience does deleting texts and similar amount to destroying evidence?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 01:20:53 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 05, 2018, 11:26:33 AM
I honestly believe that Jackson and Olding would be really foolish to take the stand. Once up there they leave themselves wide open to be caught out in cross examination. Also they would be crucified for their 'lad' behaviour and will come across as even bigger scumbags than they already are. It's one thing to type 'top shagger' but to be made say it....and the Prosecution would have them repeating those types of statements. Your decision making process is influenced mostly by what you hear.

People say how she has been consistent but it's easy for one person to have a straight story. All the defendants may have differing versions of the same set of facts but can all be telling the truth.  Her reaction the next day is unusual. Their reaction the next day is similar to that of many shit heads. I simply think that to get this above reasonable doubt there needs to be stronger independent evidence and that is not there in my opinion.

Conversely any good prosecution team can use them not taking the stand to savage them in the closing arguments. The reason they're in a no-win situation is because they're very likely guilty of a crime.

Asal Mor's open contempt for movements like MeToo that has exposed systematic levels of sexual assault in western society really highlight what sort of person he is.
While the #metoo movement was largely positive, it did see an abdication of personal responsibility from plenty of women(some of whom were leading lights in the movement), who made a conscious decision to further their careers and fatten their bank accounts in exchange for giving sexual favours to powerful men.
It's bullshit.

I have no issue with prostitutes, who do the same thing, but take personal responsibility for their decisions.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on March 05, 2018, 01:28:08 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 01:18:21 PM
@David McKeown, David, in your experience does deleting texts and similar amount to destroying evidence?
Did he delete them though? Or was his phone memory "wiped"?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 01:20:53 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 05, 2018, 11:26:33 AM
I honestly believe that Jackson and Olding would be really foolish to take the stand. Once up there they leave themselves wide open to be caught out in cross examination. Also they would be crucified for their 'lad' behaviour and will come across as even bigger scumbags than they already are. It's one thing to type 'top shagger' but to be made say it....and the Prosecution would have them repeating those types of statements. Your decision making process is influenced mostly by what you hear.

People say how she has been consistent but it's easy for one person to have a straight story. All the defendants may have differing versions of the same set of facts but can all be telling the truth.  Her reaction the next day is unusual. Their reaction the next day is similar to that of many shit heads. I simply think that to get this above reasonable doubt there needs to be stronger independent evidence and that is not there in my opinion.

Conversely any good prosecution team can use them not taking the stand to savage them in the closing arguments. The reason they're in a no-win situation is because they're very likely guilty of a crime.

Asal Mor's open contempt for movements like MeToo that has exposed systematic levels of sexual assault in western society really highlight what sort of person he is.
While the #metoo movement was largely positive, it did see an abdication of personal responsibility from plenty of women(some of whom were leading lights in the movement), who made a conscious decision to further their careers and fatten their bank accounts in exchange for giving sexual favours to powerful men.
It's bullshit.

I have no issue with prostitutes, who do the same thing, but take personal responsibility for their decisions.

The problem with that statement is that these powerful men abused their positions of power to obtain sexual favours.
I'm sure the women in question knew only too well that not giving in to the advances would mean the end of their careers and probably before they got a foothold in the acting game.
I'd bet established actresses were not targeted by these dirty fucks.

A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 01:36:07 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 05, 2018, 01:28:08 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 01:18:21 PM
@David McKeown, David, in your experience does deleting texts and similar amount to destroying evidence?
Did he delete them though? Or was his phone memory "wiped"?
Indeed.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 05, 2018, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:57:44 PM
Juror sick, so jury sent home for the day.  A decision to be made later today about how to proceed.  Jury has been asked to sit next Saturday morning.

Not be long before certain gents in here accuse the Jury of purposely delaying the trial in some sort of plot to delay their verdict...of course these same gents have declared them guilty from day one, so it shouldn't really matter that the defence case was supposed to start today.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 05, 2018, 01:43:11 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 01:20:53 PM
While the #metoo movement was largely positive, it did see an abdication of personal responsibility from plenty of women(some of whom were leading lights in the movement), who made a conscious decision to further their careers and fatten their bank accounts in exchange for giving sexual favours to powerful men.
The absolute f**king state of this. You are an embarrassment.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 01:44:36 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 05, 2018, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:57:44 PM
Juror sick, so jury sent home for the day.  A decision to be made later today about how to proceed.  Jury has been asked to sit next Saturday morning.

Not be long before certain gents in here accuse the Jury of purposely delaying the trial in some sort of plot to delay their verdict...of course these same gents have declared them guilty from day one, so it shouldn't really matter that the defence case was supposed to start today.

I'm thinking maybe Olding takes the jurors out for a couple of drinks in order to incapacitate them!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 01:45:50 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 01:44:36 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 05, 2018, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:57:44 PM
Juror sick, so jury sent home for the day.  A decision to be made later today about how to proceed.  Jury has been asked to sit next Saturday morning.

Not be long before certain gents in here accuse the Jury of purposely delaying the trial in some sort of plot to delay their verdict...of course these same gents have declared them guilty from day one, so it shouldn't really matter that the defence case was supposed to start today.

I'm thinking maybe Olding takes the jurors out for a couple of drinks in order to incapacitate them!

Did they say on the news they dont know when the case wil resume?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 05, 2018, 01:49:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 01:44:36 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 05, 2018, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:57:44 PM
Juror sick, so jury sent home for the day.  A decision to be made later today about how to proceed.  Jury has been asked to sit next Saturday morning.

Not be long before certain gents in here accuse the Jury of purposely delaying the trial in some sort of plot to delay their verdict...of course these same gents have declared them guilty from day one, so it shouldn't really matter that the defence case was supposed to start today.

I'm thinking maybe Olding takes the jurors out for a couple of drinks in order to incapacitate them!

Not be too many stick the pace with him on his regular night out!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 01:50:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 01:45:50 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 01:44:36 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 05, 2018, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 12:57:44 PM
Juror sick, so jury sent home for the day.  A decision to be made later today about how to proceed.  Jury has been asked to sit next Saturday morning.

Not be long before certain gents in here accuse the Jury of purposely delaying the trial in some sort of plot to delay their verdict...of course these same gents have declared them guilty from day one, so it shouldn't really matter that the defence case was supposed to start today.

I'm thinking maybe Olding takes the jurors out for a couple of drinks in order to incapacitate them!

Did they say on the news they dont know when the case wil resume?

According to Frank Greaney "The situation (about the jury) will be assessed later today and a decision will be made whether the court will sit tomorrow"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 05, 2018, 01:43:11 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 01:20:53 PM
While the #metoo movement was largely positive, it did see an abdication of personal responsibility from plenty of women(some of whom were leading lights in the movement), who made a conscious decision to further their careers and fatten their bank accounts in exchange for giving sexual favours to powerful men.
The absolute f**king state of this. You are an embarrassment.

The fact he ignores how widespread sexual assault is is a perfect example of his bias. I know a lot of every day women who have shared their stories that don't get headlines in The Guardian that are probably more shocking in many ways because of how mundane the scenarios are. It happens in most nondescript offices up and down the country, nevermind public places. This is not a problem that is in any way exclusive to situations where the man has power over the woman and to even think that shows such an incredible lack of understanding about what is happening.

That he would try to reduce it down to women furthering their careers and then comparing them to prostitues is absolutely despicable.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 05, 2018, 01:59:47 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 05, 2018, 01:43:11 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 01:20:53 PM
While the #metoo movement was largely positive, it did see an abdication of personal responsibility from plenty of women(some of whom were leading lights in the movement), who made a conscious decision to further their careers and fatten their bank accounts in exchange for giving sexual favours to powerful men.
The absolute f**king state of this. You are an embarrassment.

The fact he ignores how widespread sexual assault is is a perfect example of his bias. I know a lot of every day women who have shared their stories that don't get headlines in The Guardian that are probably more shocking in many ways because of how mundane the scenarios are. It happens in most nondescript offices up and down the country, nevermind public places. This is not a problem that is in any way exclusive to situations where the man has power over the woman and to even think that shows such an incredible lack of understanding about what is happening.

That he would try to reduce it down to women furthering their careers and then comparing them to prostitues is absolutely despicable.
"Every day women." ;D

Sly and The Family Stone should write a song about it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 05, 2018, 02:05:40 PM
Adjourned until further notice according to Q Radio there. What a c**k-up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 05, 2018, 02:09:37 PM
This is turning into a complete mess.

Any of the legal experts (only seems to be 2 people here who actually know how the legal system works) know what is normal procedure when this type of thing happens with jurors sick/missing etc?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 02:14:33 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 05, 2018, 02:05:40 PM
Adjourned until further notice according to Q Radio there. What a c**k-up.

They're waiting to hear from the juror to see if she'll be well enough to sit tomorrow...or not
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 02:17:00 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 05, 2018, 01:59:47 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 05, 2018, 01:43:11 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 01:20:53 PM
While the #metoo movement was largely positive, it did see an abdication of personal responsibility from plenty of women(some of whom were leading lights in the movement), who made a conscious decision to further their careers and fatten their bank accounts in exchange for giving sexual favours to powerful men.
The absolute f**king state of this. You are an embarrassment.

The fact he ignores how widespread sexual assault is is a perfect example of his bias. I know a lot of every day women who have shared their stories that don't get headlines in The Guardian that are probably more shocking in many ways because of how mundane the scenarios are. It happens in most nondescript offices up and down the country, nevermind public places. This is not a problem that is in any way exclusive to situations where the man has power over the woman and to even think that shows such an incredible lack of understanding about what is happening.

That he would try to reduce it down to women furthering their careers and then comparing them to prostitues is absolutely despicable.
"Every day women." ;D

Sly and The Family Stone should write a song about it.

?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 05, 2018, 02:24:12 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 05, 2018, 02:09:37 PM
This is turning into a complete mess.

Any of the legal experts (only seems to be 2 people here who actually know how the legal system works) know what is normal procedure when this type of thing happens with jurors sick/missing etc?

Basically I'd say they'll assess what happens with the sick juror, as they did with the first one. The trial can continue with 10 in the jury but getting close to mistrial territory.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 05, 2018, 02:26:07 PM
Over a year the lads would get through a lot of women. I Wonder how popular they will be in Ollies after this.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 05, 2018, 02:28:19 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 05, 2018, 02:26:07 PM
Over a year the lads would get through a lot of women. I Wonder how popular they will be in Ollies after this.

I would say they will be able to get a woman in it regardless of the verdict.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 05, 2018, 02:29:29 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 05, 2018, 02:28:19 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 05, 2018, 02:26:07 PM
Over a year the lads would get through a lot of women. I Wonder how popular they will be in Ollies after this.

I would say they will be able to get a woman in it regardless of the verdict.

Not if they are in the clink.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 05, 2018, 02:30:26 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 01:20:53 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 05, 2018, 11:26:33 AM
I honestly believe that Jackson and Olding would be really foolish to take the stand. Once up there they leave themselves wide open to be caught out in cross examination. Also they would be crucified for their 'lad' behaviour and will come across as even bigger scumbags than they already are. It's one thing to type 'top shagger' but to be made say it....and the Prosecution would have them repeating those types of statements. Your decision making process is influenced mostly by what you hear.

People say how she has been consistent but it's easy for one person to have a straight story. All the defendants may have differing versions of the same set of facts but can all be telling the truth.  Her reaction the next day is unusual. Their reaction the next day is similar to that of many shit heads. I simply think that to get this above reasonable doubt there needs to be stronger independent evidence and that is not there in my opinion.

Conversely any good prosecution team can use them not taking the stand to savage them in the closing arguments. The reason they're in a no-win situation is because they're very likely guilty of a crime.

Asal Mor's open contempt for movements like MeToo that has exposed systematic levels of sexual assault in western society really highlight what sort of person he is.
While the #metoo movement was largely positive, it did see an abdication of personal responsibility from plenty of women(some of whom were leading lights in the movement), who made a conscious decision to further their careers and fatten their bank accounts in exchange for giving sexual favours to powerful men.
It's bullshit.

I have no issue with prostitutes, who do the same thing, but take personal responsibility for their decisions.

The problem with that statement is that these powerful men abused their positions of power to obtain sexual favours.
I'm sure the women in question knew only too well that not giving in to the advances would mean the end of their careers and probably before they got a foothold in the acting game.
I'd bet established actresses were not targeted by these dirty f**ks.

A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
You would think that this wouldn't need to be explained.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 02:32:00 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 05, 2018, 02:29:29 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 05, 2018, 02:28:19 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 05, 2018, 02:26:07 PM
Over a year the lads would get through a lot of women. I Wonder how popular they will be in Ollies after this.

I would say they will be able to get a woman in it regardless of the verdict.

Not if they are in the clink.

They wont be looking the title of top shaggers in there! split roasting wont be the same
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 05, 2018, 02:32:51 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 05, 2018, 02:24:12 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 05, 2018, 02:09:37 PM
This is turning into a complete mess.

Any of the legal experts (only seems to be 2 people here who actually know how the legal system works) know what is normal procedure when this type of thing happens with jurors sick/missing etc?

Basically I'd say they'll assess what happens with the sick juror, as they did with the first one. The trial can continue with 10 in the jury but getting close to mistrial territory.

And do they go again then?

If so would they have a new group of jurors and how would you even go about getting someone who hasnt been following or have knowledge of the case?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 05, 2018, 02:37:13 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 05, 2018, 02:29:29 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 05, 2018, 02:28:19 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 05, 2018, 02:26:07 PM
Over a year the lads would get through a lot of women. I Wonder how popular they will be in Ollies after this.

I would say they will be able to get a woman in it regardless of the verdict.

Not if they are in the clink.

Thats a good point.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 05, 2018, 02:44:25 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 05, 2018, 02:32:51 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 05, 2018, 02:24:12 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 05, 2018, 02:09:37 PM
This is turning into a complete mess.

Any of the legal experts (only seems to be 2 people here who actually know how the legal system works) know what is normal procedure when this type of thing happens with jurors sick/missing etc?

Basically I'd say they'll assess what happens with the sick juror, as they did with the first one. The trial can continue with 10 in the jury but getting close to mistrial territory.

And do they go again then?

If so would they have a new group of jurors and how would you even go about getting someone who hasnt been following or have knowledge of the case?

I think yea its new jury, new judge etc and it all starts again. Going by social media its really a lottery as to what the verdict would be in that case. Everyone has their mind made up before it begins.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 02:48:05 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 05, 2018, 02:44:25 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 05, 2018, 02:32:51 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 05, 2018, 02:24:12 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 05, 2018, 02:09:37 PM
This is turning into a complete mess.

Any of the legal experts (only seems to be 2 people here who actually know how the legal system works) know what is normal procedure when this type of thing happens with jurors sick/missing etc?

Basically I'd say they'll assess what happens with the sick juror, as they did with the first one. The trial can continue with 10 in the jury but getting close to mistrial territory.

And do they go again then?

If so would they have a new group of jurors and how would you even go about getting someone who hasnt been following or have knowledge of the case?

I think yea its new jury, new judge etc and it all starts again. Going by social media its really a lottery as to what the verdict would be in that case. Everyone has their mind made up before it begins.

Sure social media had everyone believing the padeo hunters were brilliant
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
I'm sure most prostitutes are faced with tough life choices too. They both take the decision to sell their bodies. I don't accept that the movie industry is so small that those actresses couldn't have rejected the advances of a Weinstein type and tried to have made it somewhere else.

I bet that most prostitutes wouldn't find the comparison as surprising as you do.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
I'm sure most prostitutes are faced with tough life choices too. They both take the decision to sell their bodies. I don't accept that the movie industry is so small that those actresses couldn't have rejected the advances of a Weinstein type and tried to have made it somewhere else.

I bet that most prostitutes wouldn't find the comparison as surprising as you do.

Wow.

Asal Mor, folks.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
I'm sure most prostitutes are faced with tough life choices too. They both take the decision to sell their bodies. I don't accept that the movie industry is so small that those actresses couldn't have rejected the advances of a Weinstein type and tried to have made it somewhere else.

I bet that most prostitutes wouldn't find the comparison as surprising as you do.

Wow.

Asal Mor, folks.
I'm not talking about those women who were raped or assaulted by Weinstein types obviously.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:30:36 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
I'm sure most prostitutes are faced with tough life choices too. They both take the decision to sell their bodies. I don't accept that the movie industry is so small that those actresses couldn't have rejected the advances of a Weinstein type and tried to have made it somewhere else.

I bet that most prostitutes wouldn't find the comparison as surprising as you do.

Wow.

Asal Mor, folks.
I'm not talking about those women who were raped or assaulted by Weinstein types obviously.

Of course you're not.
The rest thought he was a real hunk and couldn't wait to get stripped for action in his hotel room........

He abused his position of power where he could make or break their careers and exploited these girls end off and if you can't see that then there's no hope for you.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 05, 2018, 03:40:00 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:30:36 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
I'm sure most prostitutes are faced with tough life choices too. They both take the decision to sell their bodies. I don't accept that the movie industry is so small that those actresses couldn't have rejected the advances of a Weinstein type and tried to have made it somewhere else.

I bet that most prostitutes wouldn't find the comparison as surprising as you do.

Wow.

Asal Mor, folks.
I'm not talking about those women who were raped or assaulted by Weinstein types obviously.

Of course you're not.
The rest thought he was a real hunk and couldn't wait to get stripped for action in his hotel room........

He abused his position of power where he could make or break their careers and exploited these girls end off and if you can't see that then there's no hope for you.

There's a long way to go. That's why the "George Hook" defence might still work in this court case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:30:36 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
I'm sure most prostitutes are faced with tough life choices too. They both take the decision to sell their bodies. I don't accept that the movie industry is so small that those actresses couldn't have rejected the advances of a Weinstein type and tried to have made it somewhere else.

I bet that most prostitutes wouldn't find the comparison as surprising as you do.

Wow.

Asal Mor, folks.
I'm not talking about those women who were raped or assaulted by Weinstein types obviously.

Of course you're not.
The rest thought he was a real hunk and couldn't wait to get stripped for action in his hotel room........

He abused his position of power where he could make or break their careers and exploited these girls end off and if you can't see that then there's no hope for you.
He certainly had the power to make their careers but it's horseshit to say he had the power to break them. It's the kind of horseshit that goes unquestioned though, as it's labelled "victim blaming".  He's just one man(ok he was very powerful) in a huge global industry. If they were talented enough there's literally a whole world of opportunities and auditions for them. They took the shortcut to the high life and then try to paint themselves as victims.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 04:05:28 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:30:36 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
I'm sure most prostitutes are faced with tough life choices too. They both take the decision to sell their bodies. I don't accept that the movie industry is so small that those actresses couldn't have rejected the advances of a Weinstein type and tried to have made it somewhere else.

I bet that most prostitutes wouldn't find the comparison as surprising as you do.

Wow.

Asal Mor, folks.
I'm not talking about those women who were raped or assaulted by Weinstein types obviously.

Of course you're not.
The rest thought he was a real hunk and couldn't wait to get stripped for action in his hotel room........

He abused his position of power where he could make or break their careers and exploited these girls end off and if you can't see that then there's no hope for you.
He certainly had the power to make their careers but it's horseshit to say he had the power to break them. It's the kind of horseshit that goes unquestioned though, as it's labelled "victim blaming".  He's just one man(ok he was very powerful) in a huge global industry. If they were talented enough there's literally a whole world of opportunities and auditions for them. They took the shortcut to the high life and then try to paint themselves as victims.

Pathetic.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 04:06:52 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:30:36 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
I'm sure most prostitutes are faced with tough life choices too. They both take the decision to sell their bodies. I don't accept that the movie industry is so small that those actresses couldn't have rejected the advances of a Weinstein type and tried to have made it somewhere else.

I bet that most prostitutes wouldn't find the comparison as surprising as you do.

Wow.

Asal Mor, folks.
I'm not talking about those women who were raped or assaulted by Weinstein types obviously.

Of course you're not.
The rest thought he was a real hunk and couldn't wait to get stripped for action in his hotel room........

He abused his position of power where he could make or break their careers and exploited these girls end off and if you can't see that then there's no hope for you.
He certainly had the power to make their careers but it's horseshit to say he had the power to break them. It's the kind of horseshit that goes unquestioned though, as it's labelled "victim blaming".  He's just one man(ok he was very powerful) in a huge global industry. If they were talented enough there's literally a whole world of opportunities and auditions for them. They took the shortcut to the high life and then try to paint themselves as victims.

Have a wee read at what Weinstein was up to;

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/13/opinion/contributors/salma-hayek-harvey-weinstein.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/13/opinion/contributors/salma-hayek-harvey-weinstein.html)


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 05, 2018, 04:30:05 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 05, 2018, 02:28:19 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 05, 2018, 02:26:07 PM
Over a year the lads would get through a lot of women. I Wonder how popular they will be in Ollies after this.

I would say they will be able to get a woman in it regardless of the verdict.
I'd say they would feel more at home here :

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/lesbian-lust-and-catfights-in-belfast-jail-36660335.html
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 05, 2018, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 05, 2018, 02:44:25 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 05, 2018, 02:32:51 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 05, 2018, 02:24:12 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 05, 2018, 02:09:37 PM
This is turning into a complete mess.

Any of the legal experts (only seems to be 2 people here who actually know how the legal system works) know what is normal procedure when this type of thing happens with jurors sick/missing etc?

Basically I'd say they'll assess what happens with the sick juror, as they did with the first one. The trial can continue with 10 in the jury but getting close to mistrial territory.

And do they go again then?

If so would they have a new group of jurors and how would you even go about getting someone who hasnt been following or have knowledge of the case?

I think yea its new jury, new judge etc and it all starts again. Going by social media its really a lottery as to what the verdict would be in that case. Everyone has their mind made up before it begins.

If there were to be a problem with the number of jurors then it would be up to the PPS if they wished to seek a retrial having assessed how the first trial had gone etc. That would mean starting again with a new jury but it would be unusual for the judge to change. We are a long way from that though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 05, 2018, 04:55:08 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:30:36 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
I'm sure most prostitutes are faced with tough life choices too. They both take the decision to sell their bodies. I don't accept that the movie industry is so small that those actresses couldn't have rejected the advances of a Weinstein type and tried to have made it somewhere else.

I bet that most prostitutes wouldn't find the comparison as surprising as you do.

Wow.

Asal Mor, folks.
I'm not talking about those women who were raped or assaulted by Weinstein types obviously.

Of course you're not.
The rest thought he was a real hunk and couldn't wait to get stripped for action in his hotel room........

He abused his position of power where he could make or break their careers and exploited these girls end off and if you can't see that then there's no hope for you.
He certainly had the power to make their careers but it's horseshit to say he had the power to break them. It's the kind of horseshit that goes unquestioned though, as it's labelled "victim blaming".  He's just one man(ok he was very powerful) in a huge global industry. If they were talented enough there's literally a whole world of opportunities and auditions for them. They took the shortcut to the high life and then try to paint themselves as victims.
Could some of them have made a different choice?  Of course they could, but that's missing the point entirely.  How many male actors were put in similar situation?  It will be miniscule in comparison.  Peter Jackson is on record that Harvey Weinstein basically stopped Judd getting a role in LOTR.  Because she stood up to him and missed out on what would have been arguably the biggest role of her career.  And you wonder why other women didn't do the same?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 05, 2018, 04:57:40 PM
I repeat, Asal Mor, you are an absolute f**king embarrassment.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 05, 2018, 05:00:04 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:30:36 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
I'm sure most prostitutes are faced with tough life choices too. They both take the decision to sell their bodies. I don't accept that the movie industry is so small that those actresses couldn't have rejected the advances of a Weinstein type and tried to have made it somewhere else.

I bet that most prostitutes wouldn't find the comparison as surprising as you do.

Wow.

Asal Mor, folks.
I'm not talking about those women who were raped or assaulted by Weinstein types obviously.

Of course you're not.
The rest thought he was a real hunk and couldn't wait to get stripped for action in his hotel room........

He abused his position of power where he could make or break their careers and exploited these girls end off and if you can't see that then there's no hope for you.
He certainly had the power to make their careers but it's horseshit to say he had the power to break them. It's the kind of horseshit that goes unquestioned though, as it's labelled "victim blaming".  He's just one man(ok he was very powerful) in a huge global industry. If they were talented enough there's literally a whole world of opportunities and auditions for them. They took the shortcut to the high life and then try to paint themselves as victims.

Ach now that is poor. Paint themselves as victims. You are coming across like fearon- that is the level of that post.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 05, 2018, 05:06:38 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 05, 2018, 01:18:21 PM
@David McKeown, David, in your experience does deleting texts and similar amount to destroying evidence?

Harrison as I understand it is charged with committing an act likely to pervert the course of justice (unlike rape etc) this is still a common law offence so it's impossible to exhaustively define what can amount to such an act but destroying evidence certainly can. That said simply deleting texts and whats apps wouldn't be enough I mean if I was to delete mine now I wouldn't have committed the offence. There needs to be more, such as he was told not to delete them as they were evidence or he should have known in all the circumstances they would amount to evidence etc. I haven't seen any evidence about when these things were supposed to have been deleted.

Moreover I'm confused by what exactly has happened, some reports I've read seem to suggest he deleted everything by wiping his phone. Other suggest he deleted individual messages but again I've no idea what the evidence for this was if he deleted his entire phone. I suppose that's the issue woth only getting synopsises of days of evidence
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 09:10:56 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 05, 2018, 05:00:04 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:30:36 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
I'm sure most prostitutes are faced with tough life choices too. They both take the decision to sell their bodies. I don't accept that the movie industry is so small that those actresses couldn't have rejected the advances of a Weinstein type and tried to have made it somewhere else.

I bet that most prostitutes wouldn't find the comparison as surprising as you do.

Wow.

Asal Mor, folks.
I'm not talking about those women who were raped or assaulted by Weinstein types obviously.

Of course you're not.
The rest thought he was a real hunk and couldn't wait to get stripped for action in his hotel room........

He abused his position of power where he could make or break their careers and exploited these girls end off and if you can't see that then there's no hope for you.
He certainly had the power to make their careers but it's horseshit to say he had the power to break them. It's the kind of horseshit that goes unquestioned though, as it's labelled "victim blaming".  He's just one man(ok he was very powerful) in a huge global industry. If they were talented enough there's literally a whole world of opportunities and auditions for them. They took the shortcut to the high life and then try to paint themselves as victims.

Ach now that is poor. Paint themselves as victims. You are coming across like fearon- that is the level of that post.
You're equating child sex abuse victims with consenting adults there Tommy. A perfect illustration of how silly the victim culture has gone.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 09:17:50 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 09:10:56 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 05, 2018, 05:00:04 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:30:36 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
I'm sure most prostitutes are faced with tough life choices too. They both take the decision to sell their bodies. I don't accept that the movie industry is so small that those actresses couldn't have rejected the advances of a Weinstein type and tried to have made it somewhere else.

I bet that most prostitutes wouldn't find the comparison as surprising as you do.

Wow.

Asal Mor, folks.
I'm not talking about those women who were raped or assaulted by Weinstein types obviously.

Of course you're not.
The rest thought he was a real hunk and couldn't wait to get stripped for action in his hotel room........

He abused his position of power where he could make or break their careers and exploited these girls end off and if you can't see that then there's no hope for you.
He certainly had the power to make their careers but it's horseshit to say he had the power to break them. It's the kind of horseshit that goes unquestioned though, as it's labelled "victim blaming".  He's just one man(ok he was very powerful) in a huge global industry. If they were talented enough there's literally a whole world of opportunities and auditions for them. They took the shortcut to the high life and then try to paint themselves as victims.

Ach now that is poor. Paint themselves as victims. You are coming across like fearon- that is the level of that post.
You're equating child sex abuse victims with consenting adults there Tommy. A perfect illustration of how silly the victim culture has gone.

You've been found out. I knew it for a while.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 05, 2018, 09:25:19 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 09:10:56 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 05, 2018, 05:00:04 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:30:36 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
I'm sure most prostitutes are faced with tough life choices too. They both take the decision to sell their bodies. I don't accept that the movie industry is so small that those actresses couldn't have rejected the advances of a Weinstein type and tried to have made it somewhere else.

I bet that most prostitutes wouldn't find the comparison as surprising as you do.

Wow.

Asal Mor, folks.
I'm not talking about those women who were raped or assaulted by Weinstein types obviously.

Of course you're not.
The rest thought he was a real hunk and couldn't wait to get stripped for action in his hotel room........

He abused his position of power where he could make or break their careers and exploited these girls end off and if you can't see that then there's no hope for you.
He certainly had the power to make their careers but it's horseshit to say he had the power to break them. It's the kind of horseshit that goes unquestioned though, as it's labelled "victim blaming".  He's just one man(ok he was very powerful) in a huge global industry. If they were talented enough there's literally a whole world of opportunities and auditions for them. They took the shortcut to the high life and then try to paint themselves as victims.

Ach now that is poor. Paint themselves as victims. You are coming across like fearon- that is the level of that post.
You're equating child sex abuse victims with consenting adults there Tommy. A perfect illustration of how silly the victim culture has gone.

I meant in the controversial, unpopular and pretty ludicrous nature of your post.

Sometimes a victim is actually a victim. Yes granted not 100 percent of the time but if you think 100 % of the people accusing weinstein just suffer from victim complex then that is not a good position.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 05, 2018, 09:59:32 PM
Come on lads lets not pretend you havent bought the missus something with a view towards a bit of filth as repayment.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 10:01:58 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 05, 2018, 09:59:32 PM
Come on lads lets not pretend you havent bought the missus something with a view towards a bit of filth as repayment.

Tony.. Fearon?

Surely you see this is not a topic you should be making light of?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 10:02:53 PM
As I clearly stated earlier Tommy, I'm not talking about the women that Weinstein physically forced himself on. I'm talking about those who had a choice and still had sex with him.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 10:04:17 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 05, 2018, 09:59:32 PM
Come on lads lets not pretend you havent bought the missus something with a view towards a bit of filth as repayment.

Boots! Very expensive
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 05, 2018, 10:10:13 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 10:02:53 PM
As I clearly stated earlier Tommy, I'm not talking about the women that Weinstein physically forced himself on. I'm talking about those who had a choice and still had sex with him.

Fair enough but i don't agree with your definition of choice. ( not even remotely)

Anyway you are entitled to your view.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 05, 2018, 10:12:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 05, 2018, 10:04:17 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 05, 2018, 09:59:32 PM
Come on lads lets not pretend you havent bought the missus something with a view towards a bit of filth as repayment.

Boots! Very expensive
The chemist or the footwear?!  ;D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 10:21:11 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 05, 2018, 10:10:13 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 10:02:53 PM
As I clearly stated earlier Tommy, I'm not talking about the women that Weinstein physically forced himself on. I'm talking about those who had a choice and still had sex with him.

Fair enough but i don't agree with your definition of choice. ( not even remotely)

Anyway you are entitled to your view.
Fair enough Tommy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 10:22:12 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 09:17:50 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 09:10:56 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 05, 2018, 05:00:04 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:30:36 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
I'm sure most prostitutes are faced with tough life choices too. They both take the decision to sell their bodies. I don't accept that the movie industry is so small that those actresses couldn't have rejected the advances of a Weinstein type and tried to have made it somewhere else.

I bet that most prostitutes wouldn't find the comparison as surprising as you do.

Wow.

Asal Mor, folks.
I'm not talking about those women who were raped or assaulted by Weinstein types obviously.

Of course you're not.
The rest thought he was a real hunk and couldn't wait to get stripped for action in his hotel room........

He abused his position of power where he could make or break their careers and exploited these girls end off and if you can't see that then there's no hope for you.
He certainly had the power to make their careers but it's horseshit to say he had the power to break them. It's the kind of horseshit that goes unquestioned though, as it's labelled "victim blaming".  He's just one man(ok he was very powerful) in a huge global industry. If they were talented enough there's literally a whole world of opportunities and auditions for them. They took the shortcut to the high life and then try to paint themselves as victims.

Ach now that is poor. Paint themselves as victims. You are coming across like fearon- that is the level of that post.
You're equating child sex abuse victims with consenting adults there Tommy. A perfect illustration of how silly the victim culture has gone.

You've been found out. I knew it for a while.
Yeah I was still right about Ched though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 10:42:51 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 10:22:12 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 09:17:50 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 09:10:56 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 05, 2018, 05:00:04 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 03:30:36 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 05, 2018, 01:28:39 PM
A prostitute takes part in sex for the financial reward, there is no expectation beyond that. These girls were not prostitutes but put in a compromising position with a stark choice to make not related to their skillset on audition and I can't see how you could draw parallels with both.
I'm sure most prostitutes are faced with tough life choices too. They both take the decision to sell their bodies. I don't accept that the movie industry is so small that those actresses couldn't have rejected the advances of a Weinstein type and tried to have made it somewhere else.

I bet that most prostitutes wouldn't find the comparison as surprising as you do.

Wow.

Asal Mor, folks.
I'm not talking about those women who were raped or assaulted by Weinstein types obviously.

Of course you're not.
The rest thought he was a real hunk and couldn't wait to get stripped for action in his hotel room........

He abused his position of power where he could make or break their careers and exploited these girls end off and if you can't see that then there's no hope for you.
He certainly had the power to make their careers but it's horseshit to say he had the power to break them. It's the kind of horseshit that goes unquestioned though, as it's labelled "victim blaming".  He's just one man(ok he was very powerful) in a huge global industry. If they were talented enough there's literally a whole world of opportunities and auditions for them. They took the shortcut to the high life and then try to paint themselves as victims.

Ach now that is poor. Paint themselves as victims. You are coming across like fearon- that is the level of that post.
You're equating child sex abuse victims with consenting adults there Tommy. A perfect illustration of how silly the victim culture has gone.

You've been found out. I knew it for a while.
Yeah I was still right about Ched though.

Were you?

It's bad when you're having to relive your past 'glories' when the heat has gotten too much to handle on this one.

Victims of sexual assault are like prostitutes in your mind. Your opinions on rape victims will hence be treated with deep suspicion.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 10:55:30 PM
Sexual assault? Voluntarily sleeping with a producer to get a part in a movie? Try taking that one to court and see how it goes.

There were plenty who Weinstein did genuinely assault and that's a different matter though I know you well enough at this stage to know you're incapable of engaging your brain and analysing different cases on their own merits.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 06, 2018, 08:20:23 AM
There are a few of Weinsteins so called victims that are hard to believe.  Rose McGowan claimed she was the victim of an attack in the mid 90s and that she received a huge payoff around that time yet there are loads of pictures of her cosying up to him as recently as 2006/07.  Now she is gaining more exposure than ever because of Weinstein and I seemingly can blame him for everything (caught with drugs but blamed him for planting them)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 06, 2018, 08:59:18 AM
This thread had really increased my ignore list.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 11:13:56 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 10:55:30 PM
Sexual assault? Voluntarily sleeping with a producer to get a part in a movie? Try taking that one to court and see how it goes.

There were plenty who Weinstein did genuinely assault and that's a different matter though I know you well enough at this stage to know you're incapable of engaging your brain and analysing different cases on their own merits.

Did you read that link I posted?

Weinstein was one vindictive, petty hoor of an excuse of a man. Anyone, especially young aspiring actresses who refused his advances were as good as toast in Hollywood.

Had they a choice? Yes, but the fact that he was allowed to get away with his actions for so long speaks volumes for the spivs in Hollywood and that goes for some of the "me too" brigade who came out after Weinstein was on the ropes thanks to some of the braver women, especially those who had gotten a profile where they would be believed and not bought off.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on March 06, 2018, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 05, 2018, 09:59:32 PM
Come on lads lets not pretend you havent bought the missus something with a view towards a bit of filth as repayment.

As someone else pointed out earlier with the definition of rape, there is a large percentage of husbands who could be prosecuted for raping their wives.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on March 06, 2018, 12:36:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 02:26:59 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 05, 2018, 01:48:49 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 04, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
https://www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032?__twitter_impression=true

Excellent stuff from joe.ie.
Reading the flow of messages I'm even more convinced they didn't rape her.

I'd believe so too. Some strange behaviour on her part. "Lol", "got raped, brilliant night". Whilst you can make an argument in favour of her non-resistance as a manifestation of the horror she was enduring, I'm just not sure how you can present sarcasm as a typical response to a rape event.

I'm not going to even bother to try to unpack that absolute garbage of a post.

Playing the man not the ball, typical petty diversion tactics there syf.

I'd say you're unable to counter that piece of evidence without reaching for the ould "physcological effect of rape" argument. Give it a go there, your so convinced of their guilt you should be able to reason up some excuse.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on March 06, 2018, 12:48:08 PM
The details we got of this trial are so f**king sparse it's impossible to say what the verdict will be. I mean has anyone a link to the exact detail to events that shows Harrison is guilty of perverting the course of justice? The word is he deleted messages but I haven't read any piece where it details how or when he done this. Evidence which must exist if he was charged.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 06, 2018, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 05, 2018, 09:59:32 PM
Come on lads lets not pretend you havent bought the missus something with a view towards a bit of filth as repayment.

As someone else pointed out earlier with the definition of rape, there is a large percentage of husbands who could be prosecuted for raping their wives.

And wives raping their husbands
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LeoMc on March 06, 2018, 01:11:48 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 06, 2018, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 05, 2018, 09:59:32 PM
Come on lads lets not pretend you havent bought the missus something with a view towards a bit of filth as repayment.

As someone else pointed out earlier with the definition of rape, there is a large percentage of husbands who could be prosecuted for raping their wives.

And wives raping their husbands
Not sure what goes on in your bedroom


Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B)
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) 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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dire Ear on March 06, 2018, 01:35:26 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 06, 2018, 08:59:18 AM
This thread had really increased my ignore list.
How can I get this function for posters?  Cheers
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 06, 2018, 01:50:02 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on March 06, 2018, 01:35:26 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 06, 2018, 08:59:18 AM
This thread had really increased my ignore list.
How can I get this function for posters?  Cheers
Go Profile > Modify Profile and you'll be allowed to Edit Ignore List. Add magpie seanie and Syferus, hit Save and Bob's your uncle.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on March 06, 2018, 02:05:19 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on March 06, 2018, 01:11:48 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 06, 2018, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 05, 2018, 09:59:32 PM
Come on lads lets not pretend you havent bought the missus something with a view towards a bit of filth as repayment.

As someone else pointed out earlier with the definition of rape, there is a large percentage of husbands who could be prosecuted for raping their wives.

And wives raping their husbands
Not sure what goes on in your bedroom


Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B)
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) 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.

Not mine son, but many others.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dire Ear on March 06, 2018, 02:21:56 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 06, 2018, 01:50:02 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on March 06, 2018, 01:35:26 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 06, 2018, 08:59:18 AM
This thread had really increased my ignore list.
How can I get this function for posters?  Cheers
Go Profile > Modify Profile and you'll be allowed to Edit Ignore List. Add magpie seanie and Syferus, hit Save and Bob's your uncle.
Thank you
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 06, 2018, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 06, 2018, 01:50:02 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on March 06, 2018, 01:35:26 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 06, 2018, 08:59:18 AM
This thread had really increased my ignore list.
How can I get this function for posters?  Cheers
Go Profile > Modify Profile and you'll be allowed to Edit Ignore List. Add magpie seanie and Syferus, hit Save and Bob's your uncle.

;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on March 06, 2018, 06:41:49 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 03:16:03 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 01, 2018, 02:51:43 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 01, 2018, 02:34:10 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 01, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 01, 2018, 02:06:42 PM
Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.

That was my initial thoughts as well. I think Harrison refers to the complainant saying it was not consensual but I imagine the defence will try to paint the picture that it was regret after the fact as per Olding's statement. Its a complete mess and I have no idea what way this  should or will go.

I do think it actually strengthens the case for anonymity for all participants. If the defendants had not been named there would be limited interest in the case. In the scenario where the guys are found not guilty that's only fair. But I also think it would help the other party as there would be limited media interest in who the complainant was. As it stands now I think it is likely that her name would  get out which helps no-one. And if it a guilty verdict, I would imagine its easier to maintain that anonymity for her (should she decide) because there has not been such media attention. I know there is an argument that other victims/witnesses  are more likely to come forward if the accused is named etc but on balance i think it would be better to have all this out of the media.

When there is a systematic and societal bias against rape victims even coming forward I have little issue with names being made public once charged. If the police and the state didn't beleive a rape happened it wouldn't reach that point to begin with. It again goes without saying that a not guilty verdict does not equal innocence or a right to pick up their lives as if nothing occurred.

I am amused by the hand wringing in this thread over them being named despite it being common in many other types of cases. Do you realise the bias you're propigating here?

You see this is where you let yourself down and expose the fact that you actually couldn't give a flying fcuk about the alleged victim here.  Anyone with half a brain would know that this case wouldn't have been given a second glance by the media if the defendants hadn't been such high profile people.

That being the case, this girl would have been spared the torture of having read and listen to the most intimate discussions about her being conducted on the front page of every newspaper and being the headline story in every news bulletin.  This trial and the associated reporting also has to have planted a seed of doubt into the mind of anyone thinking of coming forward in similar circumstances.

Of course, the defendants would have also been spared being vilified by every halfwit attention seeker in the street before being convicted of any wrongdoing.  And we all know someone in that bracket.

The victim has anonymity so this is a very bizarre post in a lot of ways.

The suggestion that they should have had their identifies protected particularly because they were well known and it would create a fuss might be the most incredible angle of the lot, though.

I won't hold my breath here because you've shown innumerable times that you run away from difficult questions but anyway...

Could you outline exactly what is bizarre in this?  Just because she's anonymous to the general public doesn't mean she doesn't watch the news/go online/see newspapers.  They are all reporting on this and they are all reporting the same intimate, graphic details.  This is not to mention the fact that she's not really anonymous at all.  Anyone who has left the house in the past few weeks will have heard this girl's name.

Your second line is another typical straw man.  That's not what I suggested, in any way.  I suggested that everyone should be anonymous, which would provide a level of protection to all concerned.  In this case more than most.  You don't seem to have understood this simple concept, which is embarrassing for you.  But, in fairness, you don't seem to embarrass that easily.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 06, 2018, 09:37:34 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 06, 2018, 01:50:02 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on March 06, 2018, 01:35:26 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 06, 2018, 08:59:18 AM
This thread had really increased my ignore list.
How can I get this function for posters?  Cheers
Go Profile > Modify Profile and you'll be allowed to Edit Ignore List. Add magpie seanie and Syferus, hit Save and Bob's your uncle.
;D Brilliant Tony.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 06, 2018, 10:03:54 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 06, 2018, 11:13:56 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 05, 2018, 10:55:30 PM
Sexual assault? Voluntarily sleeping with a producer to get a part in a movie? Try taking that one to court and see how it goes.

There were plenty who Weinstein did genuinely assault and that's a different matter though I know you well enough at this stage to know you're incapable of engaging your brain and analysing different cases on their own merits.

Did you read that link I posted?

Weinstein was one vindictive, petty hoor of an excuse of a man. Anyone, especially young aspiring actresses who refused his advances were as good as toast in Hollywood.

Had they a choice? Yes, but the fact that he was allowed to get away with his actions for so long speaks volumes for the spivs in Hollywood and that goes for some of the "me too" brigade who came out after Weinstein was on the ropes thanks to some of the braver women, especially those who had gotten a profile where they would be believed and not bought off.
My point was never about defending Weinstein who is a rapist, abuser and an exploiter.

Nrico rightly mentioned Rose Mcgowan. She was in the middle of negotiating another payoff from Weinstein (her third maybe?) to keep quiet when the ny times broke the story and then she went public as she knew the hush money wouldn't be coming. She pushed the #rosearmy hashtag and tried to portray herself as an icon for sex abuse victims. This despite her previously having worked for convicted child rapist Vic Salva and saying "I still don't really understand the whole story or history there, and I'd rather not, because it's not really my business. But he's an incredibly sweet and gentle man" when asked about his convictions. She was happy to pose for photos on red carpets with Harvey before the story went public too.

So forgive me for being cynical about some "victims".

I agree with all of your post about Weinstein but I stand over my earlier posts about some of the "victims" who have attached themselves to the MeToo campaign. They knew the score, they did well out of it and they'd do the same again.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 06, 2018, 10:15:31 PM
Great points Franko. Especially that Syf's inability to see how much better off the alleged victim would be if this trial was kept under wraps through anonymity for all parties, shows he doesn't give a fcuk about the girl in spite of all his ranting.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LeoMc on March 06, 2018, 10:17:36 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 06, 2018, 02:05:19 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on March 06, 2018, 01:11:48 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 06, 2018, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 05, 2018, 09:59:32 PM
Come on lads lets not pretend you havent bought the missus something with a view towards a bit of filth as repayment.

As someone else pointed out earlier with the definition of rape, there is a large percentage of husbands who could be prosecuted for raping their wives.

And wives raping their husbands
Not sure what goes on in your bedroom


Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B)
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) 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.

Not mine son, but many others.
I was addressing MR2s comment.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 06, 2018, 10:22:32 PM
On the rose mcgowan point asal my wife regularly gives off to me about her and how her situation panned out. On her i think you possibly aren't too far wrong. On a lot of others not so sure but she strikes as someone who has manipulated the situation .
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 06, 2018, 10:33:07 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 06, 2018, 10:22:32 PM
On the rose mcgowan point asal my wife regularly gives off to me about her and how her situation panned out. On her i think you possibly aren't too far wrong. On a lot of others not so sure but she strikes as someone who has manipulated the situation .
Cheers Tommy. Like Johnny you're a good poster and I'd always take your points of view on board, but there are a lot of tosspots out there who will try to shout me down with the mindless "victim blaming" label when I'm just expressing an opinion and I feel once someone identifies themselves as a victim they are immune to questioning in the eyes of the online lynch mob. I didn't agree with George Hook's comments about personal responsibility in the particular case he was commenting on for example but I thought the reaction and him losing his job was crazy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 06, 2018, 10:39:37 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 06, 2018, 10:22:32 PM
On the rose mcgowan point asal my wife regularly gives off to me about her and how her situation panned out. On her i think you possibly aren't too far wrong. On a lot of others not so sure but she strikes as someone who has manipulated the situation .

It seems any angle no matter how meaningless is seized upon by a segement of this thread to try to explain away holding onto predjuices and old ways of thinking. I've not read enough of your posts to say that's what you're doing but the person you're replying to most certainly is.

Sexual asssault of women is at epidemic levels and has been for as long as there has been human civilisation. It's only in the last 100 years that people have even woke up slightly to the fundamental sexism that society is built upon.

It may take a few of the older generations dying off and reaching the ages at which they have to relinquish power for the message that younger people are already getting loud and clear to be fully accepted.

Make no mistake, people like Asal Mor and MR2 are on the wrong side of history. Change will happen no matter much they wish it not to.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 10:43:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 06, 2018, 10:39:37 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 06, 2018, 10:22:32 PM
On the rose mcgowan point asal my wife regularly gives off to me about her and how her situation panned out. On her i think you possibly aren't too far wrong. On a lot of others not so sure but she strikes as someone who has manipulated the situation .

It seems any angle no matter how meaningless is seized upon by a segement of this thread to try to explain away holding onto predjuices and old ways of thinking. I've not read enough of your posts to say that's what you're doing by the person you're replying to most certainly is.

Sexual asssault of women is at epidemic levels and has been for as long as there has been human civilisation. It's only in the last 100 years that people have even woke up slightly to the fundamental sexism that society is built upon.

It may take a few of the older generations dying off and reaching the ages at which they have to relinquish power for the message that younger people are already getting loud and clear to be fully accepted.

Make no mistake, people like Asal Mor and MR2 are on the wrong side of history. Change will happen no matter much they wish it not to.

Syferus who really gives a f**k what you think? You've absolutely no clue. But hey away ya go
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 06, 2018, 11:09:08 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 06, 2018, 10:39:37 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 06, 2018, 10:22:32 PM
On the rose mcgowan point asal my wife regularly gives off to me about her and how her situation panned out. On her i think you possibly aren't too far wrong. On a lot of others not so sure but she strikes as someone who has manipulated the situation .

It seems any angle no matter how meaningless is seized upon by a segement of this thread to try to explain away holding onto predjuices and old ways of thinking. I've not read enough of your posts to say that's what you're doing but the person you're replying to most certainly is.

Sexual asssault of women is at epidemic levels and has been for as long as there has been human civilisation. It's only in the last 100 years that people have even woke up slightly to the fundamental sexism that society is built upon.

It may take a few of the older generations dying off and reaching the ages at which they have to relinquish power for the message that younger people are already getting loud and clear to be fully accepted.

Make no mistake, people like Asal Mor and MR2 are on the wrong side of history. Change will happen no matter much they wish it not to.
Change is fine but why the need to lynch and try to destroy people (like George Hook and Rory Best) for little or no reason, which has been a feature of this movement?

Why the inability to see the self-serving hypocrisy of someone like Rose McGowan and immediately shout "victim blaming" (as you did when I previously mentioned McGowan's bullshit) when anyone questions anything to do with this movement for change?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 06, 2018, 11:30:40 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 06, 2018, 10:39:37 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 06, 2018, 10:22:32 PM
On the rose mcgowan point asal my wife regularly gives off to me about her and how her situation panned out. On her i think you possibly aren't too far wrong. On a lot of others not so sure but she strikes as someone who has manipulated the situation .

It seems any angle no matter how meaningless is seized upon by a segement of this thread to try to explain away holding onto predjuices and old ways of thinking. I've not read enough of your posts to say that's what you're doing but the person you're replying to most certainly is.

Sexual asssault of women is at epidemic levels and has been for as long as there has been human civilisation. It's only in the last 100 years that people have even woke up slightly to the fundamental sexism that society is built upon.

It may take a few of the older generations dying off and reaching the ages at which they have to relinquish power for the message that younger people are already getting loud and clear to be fully accepted.

Make no mistake, people like Asal Mor and MR2 are on the wrong side of history. Change will happen no matter much they wish it not to.

Tell me this .... Do you read any posts objectively and consider them in their entireity or just see something in the post and go like a red rag to a bull claiming that the poster is as big a monster as there is? You are as guilty as anyone of seizing upon things.

Also the younger person comment.... Do you represent the entireity of younger people? You should also consider most involved in this case are younger people.

Everything is loaded against the woman, the system sucks etc etc I fully get that so in your immense amounts of bullshit, and there are immense amounts, you actually have some valid points but never help yourself.

I have seen nothing in a single post you have made to suggest you think these guys are entitled to a fair trial. (Oh wait before you lynch me i think they are all scumbags but they do deserve a fair trial).

You are actually as bad as anyone you paint as a monster here if not worse.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 06, 2018, 11:34:45 PM
I take it back Tommy. You're not a good poster, you're a great poster.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 06, 2018, 11:56:13 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 06, 2018, 11:30:40 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 06, 2018, 10:39:37 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 06, 2018, 10:22:32 PM
On the rose mcgowan point asal my wife regularly gives off to me about her and how her situation panned out. On her i think you possibly aren't too far wrong. On a lot of others not so sure but she strikes as someone who has manipulated the situation .

It seems any angle no matter how meaningless is seized upon by a segement of this thread to try to explain away holding onto predjuices and old ways of thinking. I've not read enough of your posts to say that's what you're doing but the person you're replying to most certainly is.

Sexual asssault of women is at epidemic levels and has been for as long as there has been human civilisation. It's only in the last 100 years that people have even woke up slightly to the fundamental sexism that society is built upon.

It may take a few of the older generations dying off and reaching the ages at which they have to relinquish power for the message that younger people are already getting loud and clear to be fully accepted.

Make no mistake, people like Asal Mor and MR2 are on the wrong side of history. Change will happen no matter much they wish it not to.

Tell me this .... Do you read any posts objectively and consider them in their entireity or just see something in the post and go like a red rag to a bull claiming that the poster is as big a monster as there is? You are as guilty as anyone of seizing upon things.

Also the younger person comment.... Do you represent the entireity of younger people? You should also consider most involved in this case are younger people.

Everything is loaded against the woman, the system sucks etc etc I fully get that so in your immense amounts of bullshit, and there are immense amounts, you actually have some valid points but never help yourself.

I have seen nothing in a single post you have made to suggest you think these guys are entitled to a fair trial. (Oh wait before you lynch me i think they are all scumbags but they do deserve a fair trial).

You are actually as bad as anyone you paint as a monster here if not worse.

Excellent points..expect this post to.be ignored as any other one where he is challenged is.  Either that or deflection
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 12:25:52 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 06, 2018, 11:30:40 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 06, 2018, 10:39:37 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 06, 2018, 10:22:32 PM
On the rose mcgowan point asal my wife regularly gives off to me about her and how her situation panned out. On her i think you possibly aren't too far wrong. On a lot of others not so sure but she strikes as someone who has manipulated the situation .

It seems any angle no matter how meaningless is seized upon by a segement of this thread to try to explain away holding onto predjuices and old ways of thinking. I've not read enough of your posts to say that's what you're doing but the person you're replying to most certainly is.

Sexual asssault of women is at epidemic levels and has been for as long as there has been human civilisation. It's only in the last 100 years that people have even woke up slightly to the fundamental sexism that society is built upon.

It may take a few of the older generations dying off and reaching the ages at which they have to relinquish power for the message that younger people are already getting loud and clear to be fully accepted.

Make no mistake, people like Asal Mor and MR2 are on the wrong side of history. Change will happen no matter much they wish it not to.

Tell me this .... Do you read any posts objectively and consider them in their entireity or just see something in the post and go like a red rag to a bull claiming that the poster is as big a monster as there is? You are as guilty as anyone of seizing upon things.

Also the younger person comment.... Do you represent the entireity of younger people? You should also consider most involved in this case are younger people.

Everything is loaded against the woman, the system sucks etc etc I fully get that so in your immense amounts of bullshit, and there are immense amounts, you actually have some valid points but never help yourself.

I have seen nothing in a single post you have made to suggest you think these guys are entitled to a fair trial. (Oh wait before you lynch me i think they are all scumbags but they do deserve a fair trial).

You are actually as bad as anyone you paint as a monster here if not worse.

Your inability to separate my bleif that they are obviously guilty from a desire for an unfair trial shows an incredible lack of comprehension on your part, or more likely a wilful misunderstanding of what's been said because it is easier to construct a straw man argument than defend the indefensible.

Your attempts at equivocations (comparing someone defending a rape victim and those obviously arguing in bad faith against rape victims) are very typical of those who deflect from social issues such as rape and sexual assault. Your take fits so well into stereotypical patriarchial responses that anyone with a more empathetic side has encountered these same arguments many times before and can see through them quite easily.

From your post I think it's safe to say I can group you with the Asal Mor/Orior types, though you at least can bring yourself to admit the defendants are scumbags and that the system is rigged against women.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gawa316 on March 07, 2018, 03:25:05 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on March 06, 2018, 01:11:48 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 06, 2018, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 05, 2018, 09:59:32 PM
Come on lads lets not pretend you havent bought the missus something with a view towards a bit of filth as repayment.

As someone else pointed out earlier with the definition of rape, there is a large percentage of husbands who could be prosecuted for raping their wives.

And wives raping their husbands
Not sure what goes on in your bedroom


Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B)
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) 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.

😂😂😂 close the thread
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 07, 2018, 05:41:53 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 06, 2018, 10:15:31 PM
Great points Franko. Especially that Syf's inability to see how much better off the alleged victim would be if this trial was kept under wraps through anonymity for all parties, shows he doesn't give a fcuk about the girl in spite of all his ranting.
That's a problem with the legal system in NI. Trials are adversarial by nature so when they are reported it doesn't really suit rape cases.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 07, 2018, 06:33:32 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 07, 2018, 05:41:53 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 06, 2018, 10:15:31 PM
Great points Franko. Especially that Syf's inability to see how much better off the alleged victim would be if this trial was kept under wraps through anonymity for all parties, shows he doesn't give a fcuk about the girl in spite of all his ranting.
That's a problem with the legal system in NI. Trials are adversarial by nature so when they are reported it doesn't really suit rape cases.
Exactly seafoid.

At the same time, it's a fascinating case and a very enjoyable one to debate.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 07, 2018, 07:32:25 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 07, 2018, 06:33:32 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 07, 2018, 05:41:53 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 06, 2018, 10:15:31 PM
Great points Franko. Especially that Syf's inability to see how much better off the alleged victim would be if this trial was kept under wraps through anonymity for all parties, shows he doesn't give a fcuk about the girl in spite of all his ranting.
That's a problem with the legal system in NI. Trials are adversarial by nature so when they are reported it doesn't really suit rape cases.
Exactly seafoid.

At the same time, it's a fascinating case and a very enjoyable one to debate.
I think so too, Asal.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 07:44:01 AM
Quote from: gawa316 on March 07, 2018, 03:25:05 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on March 06, 2018, 01:11:48 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 06, 2018, 12:48:29 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 06, 2018, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 05, 2018, 09:59:32 PM
Come on lads lets not pretend you havent bought the missus something with a view towards a bit of filth as repayment.

As someone else pointed out earlier with the definition of rape, there is a large percentage of husbands who could be prosecuted for raping their wives.

And wives raping their husbands
Not sure what goes on in your bedroom


Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B)
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) 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.

😂😂😂 close the thread

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/pshe_and_citizenship/pdf/rape.pdf

Up to a 1000 men a year claim to be raped by women, made to penetrate is the term, would fall under sexual assault by law but there are moves to change that
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 07, 2018, 10:26:44 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 12:25:52 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 06, 2018, 11:30:40 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 06, 2018, 10:39:37 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 06, 2018, 10:22:32 PM
On the rose mcgowan point asal my wife regularly gives off to me about her and how her situation panned out. On her i think you possibly aren't too far wrong. On a lot of others not so sure but she strikes as someone who has manipulated the situation .

It seems any angle no matter how meaningless is seized upon by a segement of this thread to try to explain away holding onto predjuices and old ways of thinking. I've not read enough of your posts to say that's what you're doing but the person you're replying to most certainly is.

Sexual asssault of women is at epidemic levels and has been for as long as there has been human civilisation. It's only in the last 100 years that people have even woke up slightly to the fundamental sexism that society is built upon.

It may take a few of the older generations dying off and reaching the ages at which they have to relinquish power for the message that younger people are already getting loud and clear to be fully accepted.

Make no mistake, people like Asal Mor and MR2 are on the wrong side of history. Change will happen no matter much they wish it not to.

Tell me this .... Do you read any posts objectively and consider them in their entireity or just see something in the post and go like a red rag to a bull claiming that the poster is as big a monster as there is? You are as guilty as anyone of seizing upon things.

Also the younger person comment.... Do you represent the entireity of younger people? You should also consider most involved in this case are younger people.

Everything is loaded against the woman, the system sucks etc etc I fully get that so in your immense amounts of bullshit, and there are immense amounts, you actually have some valid points but never help yourself.

I have seen nothing in a single post you have made to suggest you think these guys are entitled to a fair trial. (Oh wait before you lynch me i think they are all scumbags but they do deserve a fair trial).

You are actually as bad as anyone you paint as a monster here if not worse.

Your inability to separate my brief they are obviously guilty from a desire for an unfair trial shows an incredible lack of comprehension on your part, or more likely a wilful misunderstanding of what's been said because it is easier to construct a straw man argument than defend the indefensible.

Your attempts at equivocations (comparing someone defending a rape victim and those obviously arguing in bad faith against rape victims) are very typical of those who defend and deflect from social issues such as rape and sexual assault. Your take fits so well into stereotypical patriarchial responses that anyone with a more empathetic side has encountered these same arguments many times before and can see through them quite easily.

From your post I think it's safe to say I can group you with the Asal Mor/Orior types, though you at least can bring yourself to admit the defendants are scumbags and that the system is rigged against women.

What's that -  you have put me in a box again? What's that everything is a box in these scenarios(or any) for you?

Did you read a book at school once on this subject and become an expert?

You have absolutely no ability to debate without getting on a high horse. The purpose of a trial is to prove whether or not these guys or guilty. Then if someone expresses an opinion they may not be guilty they must be a crass monster. You have no ability to separate any different instance from another. You basically have no ability to debate. You're what these days is called a snowflake. What's that snowflake - you didn't like one of someone's opinions so you became outraged,

Sometimes the lack of self awareness people have makes me laugh. At some point in time you decided you would behave like you were smarter than everyone. How you drew this conclusion is beyond me because it is certainly not a conclusion anyone else would draw.

All this from a person who actually thought somewhere you had some valid points so it pales to what other people would think of your opinions.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Ty4Sam on March 07, 2018, 10:38:23 AM
This thread is about to explode!! Paddy Jackson taking the stand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 07, 2018, 10:39:55 AM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on March 07, 2018, 10:38:23 AM
This thread is about to explode!! Paddy Jackson taking the stand.

If the prosecution have closed their case, can they still cross-examine him?

/Jim.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Ty4Sam on March 07, 2018, 10:42:00 AM
They have just finished calling their witnesses wtc. They can still cross examine anyone in the witness box. They then have to give their final arguments to the jury.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 07, 2018, 10:42:09 AM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on March 07, 2018, 10:38:23 AM
This thread is about to explode!! Paddy Jackson taking the stand.
Is he going into the box?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 07, 2018, 10:43:21 AM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 07, 2018, 10:39:55 AM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on March 07, 2018, 10:38:23 AM
This thread is about to explode!! Paddy Jackson taking the stand.

If the prosecution have closed their case, can they still cross-examine him?

/Jim.

FFS! Have you any idea at all how the system works?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on March 07, 2018, 10:44:03 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 07, 2018, 10:43:21 AM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 07, 2018, 10:39:55 AM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on March 07, 2018, 10:38:23 AM
This thread is about to explode!! Paddy Jackson taking the stand.

If the prosecution have closed their case, can they still cross-examine him?

/Jim.

FFS! Have you any idea at all how the system works?

Yes they can in other words : )
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on March 07, 2018, 10:38:23 AM
This thread is about to explode!! Paddy Jackson taking the stand.

Jesus, cue about 30 pages today alone!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 10:59:01 AM
So either the defence was confident of Paddy Jackson's story or they believe he's in trouble and he's up to defend himself!

Seen a horse and cart charging towards the court there, Syferus with a banner!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 11:07:01 AM
"When asked about his hobbies, he says that he likes to spend time with his family, friends and dog.  He likes to watch films, draw sketches of superheroes and to paint.  He says he likes to rap"

Prosecution:  "You didn't mention spit roasting and heavy drinking there, Jacko??"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 07, 2018, 11:07:22 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 07, 2018, 10:43:21 AM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 07, 2018, 10:39:55 AM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on March 07, 2018, 10:38:23 AM
This thread is about to explode!! Paddy Jackson taking the stand.

If the prosecution have closed their case, can they still cross-examine him?

/Jim.

FFS! Have you any idea at all how the system works?


I used to watch Matlock and saw My cousin Vinny years ago.  To be frank it's all a little sketchy.

/Jim.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: angermanagement on March 07, 2018, 11:16:50 AM
Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
Follow Follow @FrankGreaney
More
When asked about his hobbies, he says he likes to spend time with family and friends and his dog. He says he likes watching films, drawing sketches of superheroes and painting. He says he also likes to rap.

He sounds good craic for a 26 year old.

Not sure if Frank has left an e out at the end of rap.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on March 07, 2018, 11:23:51 AM
"i enjoy a good roast on a sunday"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 07, 2018, 11:36:38 AM
Quote from: angermanagement on March 07, 2018, 11:16:50 AM
Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
Follow Follow @FrankGreaney
More
When asked about his hobbies, he says he likes to spend time with family and friends and his dog. He says he likes watching films, drawing sketches of superheroes and painting. He says he also likes to rap.

He sounds good craic for a 26 year old.

Not sure if Frank has left an e out at the end of rap.
:)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Ty4Sam on March 07, 2018, 12:05:29 PM
Rosanna Cooney
‏ @RosannaCooney

Jackson says of the complaint's allegation that he tried to insert his entire fist inside of her that he "would never even think of doing something like that and it's horrible".

I wasn't aware that the complainant had made this allegation, was this reported?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 07, 2018, 12:15:44 PM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on March 07, 2018, 12:05:29 PM
Rosanna Cooney
‏ @RosannaCooney

Jackson says of the complaint's allegation that he tried to insert his entire fist inside of her that he "would never even think of doing something like that and it's horrible".

I wasn't aware that the complainant had made this allegation, was this reported?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/graphic-description-of-alleged-rape-by-rugby-players-heard-in-court-1.3373702
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Ty4Sam on March 07, 2018, 12:20:23 PM
Cheers Sid, hadn't seen that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 07, 2018, 01:34:06 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 07, 2018, 12:15:44 PM
Quote from: Ty4Sam on March 07, 2018, 12:05:29 PM
Rosanna Cooney
‏ @RosannaCooney

Jackson says of the complaint's allegation that he tried to insert his entire fist inside of her that he "would never even think of doing something like that and it's horrible".

I wasn't aware that the complainant had made this allegation, was this reported?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/graphic-description-of-alleged-rape-by-rugby-players-heard-in-court-1.3373702
Jackson has had a few "wouldn't do that"'s and "would never do that" but there may be a disconnect between how he thinks of himself and how he acts.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 01:37:59 PM
Jackson's questioning by defence barrister Brendan Kelly (who's actually English) has finished.  Do the other defence barristers get a go at questioning him (say if he had dropped one of their clients in it) or is it the prosecution now?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Sweeper 123 on March 07, 2018, 01:39:39 PM
or just maybe he did nothing wrong and he just wants to tell what actually happened....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 07, 2018, 01:58:07 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 07, 2018, 01:39:39 PM
or just maybe he did nothing wrong and he just wants to tell what actually happened....
I think he had to take the stand because of the discrepancy between his police statement and what the witness saw. Without any explanation, the assumption would be he's lying. Now he'll put his story across and it'll be up to the jury to see who they think is mistaken or lying.

I'd imagine he'd come across reasonably well during defence questioning. But will be interesting to see how he copes with harder questions from the prosecution.

The @RosannaCooney twitter summary is much more comprehensive than Frank Greaney.
 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 02:07:40 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 07, 2018, 01:39:39 PM
or just maybe he did nothing wrong and he just wants to tell what actually happened....

How you could think nothing happened at this stage beggars belief.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on March 07, 2018, 02:07:54 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 07, 2018, 01:58:07 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 07, 2018, 01:39:39 PM
or just maybe he did nothing wrong and he just wants to tell what actually happened....
I think he had to take the stand because of the discrepancy between his police statement and what the witness saw. Without any explanation, the assumption would be he's lying. Now he'll put his story across and it'll be up to the jury to see who they think is mistaken or lying.

I'd imagine he'd come across reasonably well during defence questioning. But will be interesting to see how he copes with harder questions from the prosecution.

The @RosannaCooney twitter summary is much more comprehensive than Frank Greaney.


I concur. must be a faster typer. I was with Frank, but now im with Rosanna  :D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 02:14:22 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 01:37:59 PM
Jackson's questioning by defence barrister Brendan Kelly (who's actually English) has finished.  Do the other defence barristers get a go at questioning him (say if he had dropped one of their clients in it) or is it the prosecution now?

The other defence barristers having a go now.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 02:22:00 PM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on March 07, 2018, 02:07:54 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 07, 2018, 01:58:07 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 07, 2018, 01:39:39 PM
or just maybe he did nothing wrong and he just wants to tell what actually happened....
I think he had to take the stand because of the discrepancy between his police statement and what the witness saw. Without any explanation, the assumption would be he's lying. Now he'll put his story across and it'll be up to the jury to see who they think is mistaken or lying.

I'd imagine he'd come across reasonably well during defence questioning. But will be interesting to see how he copes with harder questions from the prosecution.

The @RosannaCooney twitter summary is much more comprehensive than Frank Greaney.


I concur. must be a faster typer. I was with Frank, but now im with Rosanna  :D

Much more detailed....thanks for the tip.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 02:23:53 PM
Arthur Harvey QC for McIlroy is questioning Jackson:

Jackson has no reason to believe Blane McIlroy is lying or inventing anything but says that  "McIlroy was never in the room" and McIlroy's account of the complainant performing oral sex on him (McIlroy) while Jackson put his fingers inside her "didn't happen".

...so he is lying and inventing stuff then???
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 07, 2018, 02:25:34 PM
You'd have to wonder why McIlroy's barrister asked PJ any questions, given all the answers were making Blaine out to be a fibber!

Judging by all the texts etc, McIlroy comes across as a complete BS artist
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 07, 2018, 02:29:21 PM
Frank Greaney
Mr. Jackson says he also has no recollection of the woman performing oral sex on him (McIlroy). Again he says he has no reason to suppose he is lying about that

Rosanna Cooney
Jackson says that Blane McIIroy's account of the complainant performing oral sex on McIIroy while Jackson put his fingers inside the complainant "didn't happen".

That's two very different ways of describing the same question/answer!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 02:32:12 PM
A video of Olding and McIlroy with their trousers down was posted to the WhatApp group on the night in question.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 02:38:47 PM
Jesus!!! this stuff is just going to blow up in everyones faces!

Where's the popcorn?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 02:49:56 PM
Jackson told the court earlier that he defined the term "spit-roast" as oral as one end and digital on the other.  When asked what the other members of the WhatApp group would understand by spit-roast he agrees that they would define it as oral at one end and penile at the other.

He says he didn't use the term "spit-roasting" in his police interviews because it's "vulgar" and "an awkward thing to talk about".

This is prosecution questioning BTW
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 07, 2018, 02:59:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 07, 2018, 02:29:21 PM
Frank Greaney
Mr. Jackson says he also has no recollection of the woman performing oral sex on him (McIlroy). Again he says he has no reason to suppose he is lying about that

Rosanna Cooney
Jackson says that Blane McIIroy's account of the complainant performing oral sex on McIIroy while Jackson put his fingers inside the complainant "didn't happen".

That's two very different ways of describing the same question/answer!

This may highlight exactly what I was taking about in terms of the danger of making judgements based on press reports. If those two tweets are descriptions of the same piece of evidence they seem to suggest very different things.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:02:07 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 07, 2018, 02:59:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 07, 2018, 02:29:21 PM
Frank Greaney
Mr. Jackson says he also has no recollection of the woman performing oral sex on him (McIlroy). Again he says he has no reason to suppose he is lying about that

Rosanna Cooney
Jackson says that Blane McIIroy's account of the complainant performing oral sex on McIIroy while Jackson put his fingers inside the complainant "didn't happen".

That's two very different ways of describing the same question/answer!

This may highlight exactly what I was taking about in terms of the danger of making judgements based on press reports. If those two tweets are descriptions of the same piece of evidence they seem to suggest very different things.

Even if they are the same exchange they both bring into serious question the validity of the statements by the defence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 07, 2018, 03:05:07 PM
McIlroy , Jackson and Olding seem to be playing the prisoner''s dilemma
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 03:07:14 PM
Next morning Jackson got up and went into the room with Stuart and Emily and left McIlroy in the bed as "Blane sleeps quite late".

It's also Jackson's assertion that whatever made the complainant upset happened after she left his house.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 07, 2018, 03:16:44 PM
Rosanna Cooney is from JOE.ie. Be skeptical of anything she writes, much less reporting on a criminal trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on March 07, 2018, 03:17:58 PM
Ach jaysus have i to switch sides again?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on March 07, 2018, 03:19:04 PM
These guys are gonna walk.....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 07, 2018, 03:23:58 PM
From the sounds of things he seemed composed enough.

The McIlroy thing is weird though. I mean if they were all supposed to have concocted a story to save themselves surely they would at least be consistent!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 03:24:20 PM
Prosecution is finished with Jackson and the defence QC is back on his feet.

With the usual caveats it doesn't sound like there was a knock out blow on Jackson.  The fact that he defines a spit roast different from everyone else is a bit awkward, as he denies penile penetration of the complainant.  Also he says that whatever made the complainant upset happened after she left his house...sounds a bit weak
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 07, 2018, 03:25:07 PM
Character witness??!!!

Jesus who could this be if it's any of the Irish lads good luck to them . . . they just about got away with it last time but they'll be crucified this time!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 07, 2018, 03:25:07 PM
Character witness??!!!

Jesus who could this be if it's any of the Irish lads good luck to them . . . they just about got away with it last time but they'll be crucified this time!!!

Who would be stupid enough to get involved in this trial???
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 07, 2018, 03:28:45 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 03:24:20 PM
Prosecution is finished with Jackson and the defence QC is back on his feet.

With the usual caveats it doesn't sound like there was a knock out blow on Jackson.  The fact that he defines a spit roast different from everyone else is a bit awkward, as he denies penile penetration of the complainant.  Also he says that whatever made the complainant upset happened after she left his house...sounds a bit weak

The spit roast explanation a bit weak but needed to be done as an obvious gap between claiming there was no sex and the chat about it in what's app. Surprised he wasn't pushed more on it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on March 07, 2018, 03:28:58 PM
Did Jackson actually send a message saying that spit-roasting went on?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tintin25 on March 07, 2018, 03:30:06 PM
It's all over the place, though based on what I've seen so far I think Jackson is the one in bother, with Olding the one walking.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:32:12 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 03:24:20 PM
Prosecution is finished with Jackson and the defence QC is back on his feet.

With the usual caveats it doesn't sound like there was a knock out blow on Jackson.  The fact that he defines a spit roast different from everyone else is a bit awkward, as he denies penile penetration of the complainant.  Also he says that whatever made the complainant upset happened after she left his house...sounds a bit weak

By "bit awkward" it means the jury either really believe he defined it differently to everyone else (and is aware of this fact) or thinks he is lying and covering up something. And what would he be covering up? If the jury don't believe him on that the whole house of cards starts to fall around him.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 03:35:21 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 07, 2018, 03:28:45 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 03:24:20 PM
Prosecution is finished with Jackson and the defence QC is back on his feet.

With the usual caveats it doesn't sound like there was a knock out blow on Jackson.  The fact that he defines a spit roast different from everyone else is a bit awkward, as he denies penile penetration of the complainant.  Also he says that whatever made the complainant upset happened after she left his house...sounds a bit weak

The spit roast explanation a bit weak but needed to be done as an obvious gap between claiming there was no sex and the chat about it in what's app. Surprised he wasn't pushed more on it.

I meant to add even though McIlroy and Harrison had been texting each other about the complainant being hysterical, Jackson claims they didn't mention that to him and it wasn't discussed at lunch at all.  Doesn't ring true to me.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 03:38:11 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 03:32:12 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 03:24:20 PM
Prosecution is finished with Jackson and the defence QC is back on his feet.

With the usual caveats it doesn't sound like there was a knock out blow on Jackson.  The fact that he defines a spit roast different from everyone else is a bit awkward, as he denies penile penetration of the complainant.  Also he says that whatever made the complainant upset happened after she left his house...sounds a bit weak

By "bit awkward" it means the jury either really believe he defined it differently to everyone else (and is aware of this fact) or thinks he is lying and covering up something. And what would he be covering up? If the jury don't believe him on that the whole house of cards starts to fall around him.

Any male I've ever known would define spit roasting the same way as everyone else...bar Jackson ???
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 03:38:27 PM
I think they're all just trying to create confusion.

As for the definition of spit-roast......such codswallop.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 07, 2018, 03:45:44 PM
Quote from: tintin25 on March 07, 2018, 03:30:06 PM
It's all over the place, though based on what I've seen so far I think Jackson is the one in bother, with Olding the one walking.

How could Olding walk if Jackson doesn't?  Never heard of the term spit roasting until about 7 years ago myself and I didn't lead a sheltered life, therefore not knowing exactly what it means isn't a crime.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 03:47:39 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 07, 2018, 03:45:44 PM
Quote from: tintin25 on March 07, 2018, 03:30:06 PM
It's all over the place, though based on what I've seen so far I think Jackson is the one in bother, with Olding the one walking.

How could Olding walk if Jackson doesn't?  Never heard of the term spit roasting until about 7 years ago myself and I didn't lead a sheltered life, therefore not knowing exactly what it means isn't a crime.

He does know the term. It's just his definition differs from all his mates and everyone else in the whole world. Nothing odd about that is there?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on March 07, 2018, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 03:47:39 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 07, 2018, 03:45:44 PM
Quote from: tintin25 on March 07, 2018, 03:30:06 PM
It's all over the place, though based on what I've seen so far I think Jackson is the one in bother, with Olding the one walking.

How could Olding walk if Jackson doesn't?  Never heard of the term spit roasting until about 7 years ago myself and I didn't lead a sheltered life, therefore not knowing exactly what it means isn't a crime.

He does know the term. It's just his definition differs from all his mates and everyone else in the whole world. Nothing odd about that is there?
But did Jackson use the term himself or was it just the others?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 07, 2018, 03:52:33 PM
Seems Jackson has survived the prosecution cross examining him OK. No knockout blows landed.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 03:53:07 PM
The character witness is a friend of Jackson's, Dr Katy Donaldson.  Trial is over for the day, will resume tomorrow
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on March 07, 2018, 03:53:20 PM
I think they all walk as I keep thinking, 'beyond reasonable doubt' is such a high bar to get over although we only get snapshots of the case and don't get to see the demeanour of those giving evidence etc.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 04:02:05 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 07, 2018, 03:52:33 PM
Seems Jackson has survived the prosecution cross examining him OK. No knockout blows landed.

No major single thing but maybe a drip, drip, drip effect on his credibility?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 04:04:23 PM
HIs interpretation of what a spit roast is won't do him any favours. Character reference from a young medical professional female though should sway things back for him.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 04:02:05 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 07, 2018, 03:52:33 PM
Seems Jackson has survived the prosecution cross examining him OK. No knockout blows landed.

No major single thing but maybe a drip, drip, drip effect on his credibility?

And if they put Olding, McIlroy and Harrison on the stand this will continue. I'm really surprised the defence are doing this. Maybe all the people who are sure they're going to walk here are more confident than the defence lawyers?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 04:07:21 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 04:04:23 PM
HIs interpretation of what a spit roast is won't do him any favours. Character reference from a young medical professional female though should sway things back for him.

Maybe some of the guys like BCB or DMcK might explain this to us. I thought there were only limited circumstances in which a character witness would be allowed before the jury give a decision? What weight would be attached to this testimony? Maybe his Mammy should be put on the stand to tell us he's a great fella.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 04:14:19 PM
I'm sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 04:20:42 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 04:14:19 PM
I'm sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..

Having a threesome does not make you an animal, being convicted of rape does

As for them coming to the stand, I finding it strange, are they that confident that the proscecution wouldnt have much to go with when cross examining or did they feel that the case would be lost without them taking the stand?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 04:23:55 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 04:20:42 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 04:14:19 PM
I'm sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..

Having a threesome does not make you an animal, being convicted of rape does

As for them coming to the stand, I finding it strange, are they that confident that the proscecution wouldnt have much to go with when cross examining or did they feel that the case would be lost without them taking the stand?

There's no way they'd take the stand if they thought the case was in the bag.

Massive risk to put a defendant on the stand in any case, and the reasons have already been made clear why that is today with Jackson's mealymouthed explaination of the difference between his texts and his police statements.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: NAG1 on March 07, 2018, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 04:20:42 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 04:14:19 PM
I'm sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..

Having a threesome does not make you an animal, being convicted of rape does

As for them coming to the stand, I finding it strange, are they that confident that the proscecution wouldnt have much to go with when cross examining or did they feel that the case would be lost without them taking the stand?

Or are the innocent of rape and want to take the stand?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 04:25:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 04:20:42 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 04:14:19 PM
I'm sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..

Having a threesome does not make you an animal, being convicted of rape does

As for them coming to the stand, I finding it strange, are they that confident that the proscecution wouldnt have much to go with when cross examining or did they feel that the case would be lost without them taking the stand?

Usually if you feel the prosecution case is weak you'd not give evidence as you run the risk of tripping yourself up.  I'm no expert but maybe here since the complainant was on the stand for 6 or 7 days, the defence barrister thinks the jury needs to hear his side of the story from his own mouth to counter what she said.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 04:27:38 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 04:25:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 04:20:42 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 04:14:19 PM
I’m sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..

Having a threesome does not make you an animal, being convicted of rape does

As for them coming to the stand, I finding it strange, are they that confident that the proscecution wouldnt have much to go with when cross examining or did they feel that the case would be lost without them taking the stand?

Usually if you feel the prosecution case is weak you'd not give evidence as you run the risk of tripping yourself up.  I'm no expert but maybe here since the complainant was on the stand for 6 or 7 days, the defence barrister thinks the jury needs to hear his side of the story from his own mouth to counter what she said.

yeah and thats fine but he was up in the stand for how long? And was there really any damage from that questioning? only based on whats been posted I dont think its that bad, I'd have a lot more questions for him
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 04:29:58 PM
Quote from: NAG1 on March 07, 2018, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 04:20:42 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 04:14:19 PM
I'm sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..

Having a threesome does not make you an animal, being convicted of rape does

As for them coming to the stand, I finding it strange, are they that confident that the proscecution wouldnt have much to go with when cross examining or did they feel that the case would be lost without them taking the stand?

Or are the innocent of rape and want to take the stand?

You'd want to be an idiot or have a terrible lawyer to be let take the stand if you thought you had it won already.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 07, 2018, 04:30:37 PM
I can't understand why Jackson isnt being questioned about the issue of consent, as in why did he believe he had consent to indulge in any sexual activity with the girl. Surely this is the crux of the whole case, did the twitterers not make any mention of it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 07, 2018, 04:37:35 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 07, 2018, 02:29:21 PM
Frank Greaney
Mr. Jackson says he also has no recollection of the woman performing oral sex on him (McIlroy). Again he says he has no reason to suppose he is lying about that

Rosanna Cooney
Jackson says that Blane McIIroy's account of the complainant performing oral sex on McIIroy while Jackson put his fingers inside the complainant "didn't happen".

That's two very different ways of describing the same question/answer!

A comparison of the two twitters feeds shows the danger of drawing conclusions from what are essentially snippets.

Even if they were complete and accurate I reckon that the sheer volume of statements means that the summing up statements will be key.  How they point to inconsistencies in all these statements and what narrative they derive will set the tone  for the jury's deliberations.

/Jim.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 04:39:45 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 04:27:38 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 04:25:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 04:20:42 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 04:14:19 PM
I'm sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..

Having a threesome does not make you an animal, being convicted of rape does

As for them coming to the stand, I finding it strange, are they that confident that the proscecution wouldnt have much to go with when cross examining or did they feel that the case would be lost without them taking the stand?

Usually if you feel the prosecution case is weak you'd not give evidence as you run the risk of tripping yourself up.  I'm no expert but maybe here since the complainant was on the stand for 6 or 7 days, the defence barrister thinks the jury needs to hear his side of the story from his own mouth to counter what she said.

yeah and thats fine but he was up in the stand for how long? And was there really any damage from that questioning? only based on whats been posted I dont think its that bad, I'd have a lot more questions for him

Only 3.5 hours for Jackson, yeah you'd think he'd have been up for longer than that.  I dunno, the discrepancy over spit roasting might nag at the jury since Jackson's position is that no only was what happened consensual but that he didn't penetrate the woman with his penis.  Spit roasting to everyone else suggest full sex by one of the male parties.  Also I think the defence brought up the witness' evidence that she saw Jackson having full sex with the complainant, Jackson just said she was wrong.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 04:40:26 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 07, 2018, 03:28:58 PM
Did Jackson actually send a message saying that spit-roasting went on?

From Newstalk

At 11.17am, Olding text 'we are all top shaggers' and 'there was a bit of spit roasting going on last night lads' - to which Jackson replied 'there was a lot of spit roast last night'.[/b]
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 07, 2018, 04:43:00 PM
My recollection of that whatsapp exchange was that Jackson replied 'yeah there was a lot of spit last night' .
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 07, 2018, 04:44:42 PM
If one defendant takes the stand does it mean they all have to?

Or have they declared they will all take the stand?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 04:54:41 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 07, 2018, 04:44:42 PM
If one defendant takes the stand does it mean they all have to?

Or have they declared they will all take the stand?

No I think it's up to each defendant.  You'd think McIlroy would have to take the stand as Jackson called him out as a spoofer.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 04:55:46 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 07, 2018, 04:43:00 PM
My recollection of that whatsapp exchange was that Jackson replied 'yeah there was a lot of spit last night' .

From JOE.ie (though the news outlets might just be copying from each other):

At 11:17am, Olding responds to the JACOME WhatsApp group to say, "we are all top shaggers" and "there was a bit of spit roasting going on last night fellas."

Jackson adds, "There was a lot of spit roast last night."
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 07, 2018, 04:58:22 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 04:55:46 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 07, 2018, 04:43:00 PM
My recollection of that whatsapp exchange was that Jackson replied 'yeah there was a lot of spit last night' .

From JOE.ie (though the news outlets might just be copying from each other):

At 11:17am, Olding responds to the JACOME WhatsApp group to say, "we are all top shaggers" and "there was a bit of spit roasting going on last night fellas."

Jackson adds, "There was a lot of spit roast last night."

No ive definitely read it as "spit" in most articles. Sums up the danger in us getting our news of an extremely complex case in 280 characters.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 07, 2018, 04:59:50 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 04:40:26 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 07, 2018, 03:28:58 PM
Did Jackson actually send a message saying that spit-roasting went on?

From Newstalk

At 11.17am, Olding text 'we are all top shaggers' and 'there was a bit of spit roasting going on last night lads' - to which Jackson replied 'there was a lot of spit roast last night'.[/b]

Yeah, think that was a minor mistake by Greaney. Pretty sure the Irish Times reported that Jackson's reply was "there was a lot of spit last night".

So either way, from Jackson's position, he's hardly going to correct Olding on the Lads Whatsapp and say: Actually I was only using my fingers, so technically it wasn't a spit roast".

The big positive for Jackson in defending his story is that he didn't finish, in that if he had penetrated you'd expect that would generally (albeit not necessarily always) result in a finish. The big negative is the witness saying otherwise.  Although even that doesn't prove lack of consent.

I agree with someone above, that I was surprised the prosecutor didn't go harder on consent. He seemed to be more trying to pull on the heartstrings of the jury saying its the lads words against the lady. Although maybe reality was a lot different than twitter!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 07, 2018, 05:01:02 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 04:54:41 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 07, 2018, 04:44:42 PM
If one defendant takes the stand does it mean they all have to?

Or have they declared they will all take the stand?

No I think it's up to each defendant.  You'd think McIlroy would have to take the stand as Jackson called him out as a spoofer.

Did he though?  One report suggested he definitely did the other suggests he said he didn't see what McIlroy said in his statement had happened but he had no reason to doubt him.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 07, 2018, 05:03:18 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 07, 2018, 05:01:02 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 04:54:41 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 07, 2018, 04:44:42 PM
If one defendant takes the stand does it mean they all have to?

Or have they declared they will all take the stand?

No I think it's up to each defendant.  You'd think McIlroy would have to take the stand as Jackson called him out as a spoofer.

Did he though?  One report suggested he definitely did the other suggests he said he didn't see what McIlroy said in his statement had happened but he had no reason to doubt him.
In the more positive version he said he didn't see it but had no reason to think McIlroy made it up. In the more negative he said "it didn't happen"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on March 07, 2018, 05:05:42 PM
This spit roast thing isn't all its cracked up to be. Ask yourself, who are you looking at when doing it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 05:06:40 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 07, 2018, 05:05:42 PM
This spit roast thing isn't all its cracked up to be. Ask yourself, who are you looking at when doing it?

Stay classy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 07, 2018, 05:43:59 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 07, 2018, 02:29:21 PM
Frank Greaney
Mr. Jackson says he also has no recollection of the woman performing oral sex on him (McIlroy). Again he says he has no reason to suppose he is lying about that

Rosanna Cooney
Jackson says that Blane McIIroy's account of the complainant performing oral sex on McIIroy while Jackson put his fingers inside the complainant "didn't happen".

That's two very different ways of describing the same question/answer!


https://twitter.com/cescacomyn/status/971398953324474368
@cescacomyn
Follow Follow @cescacomyn
More
It was put to Jackson that when Blane McIlroy launched himself into the room naked , the young woman just had enough. "That didn't happen," he replied
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 05:53:17 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 07, 2018, 04:59:50 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 07, 2018, 04:40:26 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 07, 2018, 03:28:58 PM
Did Jackson actually send a message saying that spit-roasting went on?

From Newstalk

At 11.17am, Olding text 'we are all top shaggers' and 'there was a bit of spit roasting going on last night lads' - to which Jackson replied 'there was a lot of spit roast last night'.[/b]

Yeah, think that was a minor mistake by Greaney. Pretty sure the Irish Times reported that Jackson's reply was "there was a lot of spit last night".

So either way, from Jackson's position, he's hardly going to correct Olding on the Lads Whatsapp and say: Actually I was only using my fingers, so technically it wasn't a spit roast".

The big positive for Jackson in defending his story is that he didn't finish, in that if he had penetrated you'd expect that would generally (albeit not necessarily always) result in a finish. The big negative is the witness saying otherwise.  Although even that doesn't prove lack of consent.

I agree with someone above, that I was surprised the prosecutor didn't go harder on consent. He seemed to be more trying to pull on the heartstrings of the jury saying its the lads words against the lady. Although maybe reality was a lot different than twitter!


Francesca Comyn

Verified account

@cescacomyn

Prosecution: "I suggest to you in the unguarded moments in the aftermath of what hapened that night were perfectly happy to tell your little world that you had been involved in a spit roast". "yes" Jackson replies
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 07, 2018, 06:22:37 PM
Where in the house was this video taken? Was it downstairs? Harrison sent Olding a video at 4:41pm on the 28th, so presumably this was it? And it was presumably deleted?

https://twitter.com/RosannaCooney/status/971391670846619648

@RosannaCooney
4h4 hours ago
More
Jackson confirms that a video of McIIroy and Olding with their trousers down at the party in his house, was sent to the JACOME group that night.

I find the following confusing.

Jackson appears to be saying that McIlroy didn't come into the room at all.

Yet McIlroy says he did. The complainant says he did (though hers and McIlroy's accounts differ as to what happened when he entered the room).

Is this what Jackson is saying?

But didn't McIlroy end up sleeping in Jackson's bed?

Jackson says he heard the complainant leave as he was downstairs at the time.

But this contradicts Harrison's account, because Harrison said he said goodbye to Jackson, who was in his room, before he left.

Didn't Harrison say the complainant was in tears as she left the house? Jackson has no recollection of this.

And Harrison says he has no recollection of Jackson being downstairs as the complainant left.

We also found out today that Jackson was "very drunk".



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 07, 2018, 07:16:00 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 07, 2018, 04:30:37 PM
I can't understand why Jackson isnt being questioned about the issue of consent, as in why did he believe he had consent to indulge in any sexual activity with the girl. Surely this is the crux of the whole case, did the twitterers not make any mention of it?

Yeah, seems very strange, it's surely the key issue
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 07, 2018, 07:55:48 PM
@RosannaCooney
Prosecution: "You didn't see the complainant looking at Mr Olding downstairs...fixated on him or brushing against him...and yet as soon as he comes in the room, she moves her affection to him, kissing him and begins to perform oral sex on him" Jackson: "Yes".


Most plausible from.such a respectable gentleman
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: CiKe on March 07, 2018, 09:23:28 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 07, 2018, 07:55:48 PM
@RosannaCooney
Prosecution: "You didn't see the complainant looking at Mr Olding downstairs...fixated on him or brushing against him...and yet as soon as he comes in the room, she moves her affection to him, kissing him and begins to perform oral sex on him" Jackson: "Yes".


Most plausible from.such a respectable gentleman

I haven't made mind up but I think you are naive if you totally discount the possibility
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 09:27:20 PM
Quote from: CiKe on March 07, 2018, 09:23:28 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 07, 2018, 07:55:48 PM
@RosannaCooney
Prosecution: "You didn't see the complainant looking at Mr Olding downstairs...fixated on him or brushing against him...and yet as soon as he comes in the room, she moves her affection to him, kissing him and begins to perform oral sex on him" Jackson: "Yes".


Most plausible from.such a respectable gentleman

I haven't made mind up but I think you are naive if you totally discount the possibility

I think you're pretty naive not to almost completely discount the possibility given what we already know.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 07, 2018, 09:57:39 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 04:14:19 PM
I'm sure his junior infants teacher thought he was a lovely lad..
I know spit roast down your way usually involves a frisky hogget
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on March 07, 2018, 09:59:02 PM
Quote

We also found out today that Jackson was "very drunk".

Did he admit that under cross-examination? If so that's very poor prep from the defence team unless they are going with some sort of a  "drunken poor recollection but a gentleman" defence??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: CiKe on March 07, 2018, 10:32:59 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 09:27:20 PM
Quote from: CiKe on March 07, 2018, 09:23:28 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 07, 2018, 07:55:48 PM
@RosannaCooney
Prosecution: "You didn't see the complainant looking at Mr Olding downstairs...fixated on him or brushing against him...and yet as soon as he comes in the room, she moves her affection to him, kissing him and begins to perform oral sex on him" Jackson: "Yes".


Most plausible from.such a respectable gentleman

I haven't made mind up but I think you are naive if you totally discount the possibility

I think you're pretty naive not to almost completely discount the possibility given what we already know.

Maybe, but I KNOW you're a fuckwit based on the fact that you KNOW sweet f**k all, as do the rest of us following the trial on twitter...you'd do well to look up Socrates.

No need to thank me.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 10:34:44 PM
As Tony has left (temporarily) Syferus has taken up the baton as the village twat
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 10:37:24 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 10:34:44 PM
As Tony has left (temporarily) Syferus has taken up the baton as the village twat

It's funny because you're the one who has exposed yourself as a neanderthal in this thread. That you don't have the self-awareness to see that is surprising.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 10:44:54 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 10:37:24 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 10:34:44 PM
As Tony has left (temporarily) Syferus has taken up the baton as the village twat

It's funny because you're the one who has exposed yourself as a neantheral in this thread. That you don't have the self-awareness to see that is surprising.

Legal qualifications please? Can you show them or is it bullshit? Others have also asked but nope you've failed again!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 07, 2018, 11:10:27 PM
Ssshhh. He's saving society with his moral guardianship and advice on being self aware.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 11:31:37 PM
The more I think about it today was bad for Jackson and I cannot understand why he was put on the stand. The defence must be hoping some of the jury are starstruck rugby fans or something.

He flat out contradicted the star defence witness Dara Florence.
He maintains his mates never told him that the girl left the house in hysterics and was alleging she was raped.
Agreed Olding and Harrison would have his back.
Agreed he thinks whatever upset the girl happened after she left his house.
Said the alleged victim was coming on to him all night yet immediately switched to giving oral sex to Olding who she had paid no attention to when he came into the room.
Appears to be telling lies about the term "spit roast" although he accepted he was involved in a "spit roast" with the alleged victim.
He admitted on the stand there was video of McIlroy and Olding going round with their trousers down in the house.
Contradicted McIlroy's account emphatically by saying he was never in the room.

His testimony is not believable. Individually it's possible some of these things might have happened but the likeliest thing is this is a c**k and bull story and the prosecution are right - the ranks closed to protect their guy.

The alleged victim was on the stand for 6 or 7 days and didn't miss a beat. Jackson was there for a mere 3.5 hours and produced pure rubbish.

Looking forward to Rory Best next week.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 07, 2018, 11:35:31 PM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on March 07, 2018, 09:59:02 PM
Quote

We also found out today that Jackson was "very drunk".

Did he admit that under cross-examination? If so that's very poor prep from the defence team unless they are going with some sort of a  "drunken poor recollection but a gentleman" defence??

I'm not entirely sure how the defence were supposed to prepare him for that. Also reads more like a defence on all three elements of the offence. Ie there was no penile penetration. What happened was consensual or at least I reasonably believed (albeit it drunkly) it was consensual
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 07, 2018, 11:41:06 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 11:31:37 PM
The more I think about it today was bad for Jackson and I cannot understand why he was put on the stand. The defence must be hoping some of the jury are starstruck rugby fans or something.

He flat out contradicted the star defence witness Dara Florence.
He maintains his mates never told him that the girl left the house in hysterics and was alleging she was raped.
Agreed Olding and Harrison would have his back.
Agreed he thinks whatever upset the girl happened after she left his house.
Said the alleged victim was coming on to him all night yet immediately switched to giving oral sex to Olding who she had paid no attention to when he came into the room.
Appears to be telling lies about the term "spit roast" although he accepted he was involved in a "spit roast" with the alleged victim.
He admitted on the stand there was video of McIlroy and Olding going round with their trousers down in the house.
Contradicted McIlroy's account emphatically by saying he was never in the room.

His testimony is not believable. Individually it's possible some of these things might have happened but the likeliest thing is this is a c**k and bull story and the prosecution are right - the ranks closed to protect their guy.

The alleged victim was on the stand for 6 or 7 days and didn't miss a beat. Jackson was there for a mere 3.5 hours and produced pure rubbish.

Looking forward to Rory Best next week.

Not to saying you are right or wrong but when I read some of the Tweets about the case you could easily come to the exact opposition conclusion.

For example. One Tweeters account is he says McIlroy was. Ever in the room and didn't have sex with the complainant and is therefore a liar. the other Tweeter seems to report the exact same evidence as I didn't see him in the room but he may well have been I've no reason to thing he would lie. Without getting the full picture which I suppose we never will I don't think I could reach definite conclusions either way.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Aaron Boone on March 07, 2018, 11:46:32 PM
The jury will defo have a night in a hotel, wherever that might be.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 11:53:52 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 07, 2018, 11:41:06 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 11:31:37 PM
The more I think about it today was bad for Jackson and I cannot understand why he was put on the stand. The defence must be hoping some of the jury are starstruck rugby fans or something.

He flat out contradicted the star defence witness Dara Florence.
He maintains his mates never told him that the girl left the house in hysterics and was alleging she was raped.
Agreed Olding and Harrison would have his back.
Agreed he thinks whatever upset the girl happened after she left his house.
Said the alleged victim was coming on to him all night yet immediately switched to giving oral sex to Olding who she had paid no attention to when he came into the room.
Appears to be telling lies about the term "spit roast" although he accepted he was involved in a "spit roast" with the alleged victim.
He admitted on the stand there was video of McIlroy and Olding going round with their trousers down in the house.
Contradicted McIlroy's account emphatically by saying he was never in the room.

His testimony is not believable. Individually it's possible some of these things might have happened but the likeliest thing is this is a c**k and bull story and the prosecution are right - the ranks closed to protect their guy.

The alleged victim was on the stand for 6 or 7 days and didn't miss a beat. Jackson was there for a mere 3.5 hours and produced pure rubbish.

Looking forward to Rory Best next week.

Not to saying you are right or wrong but when I read some of the Tweets about the case you could easily come to the exact opposition conclusion.

For example. One Tweeters account is he says McIlroy was. Ever in the room and didn't have sex with the complainant and is therefore a liar. the other Tweeter seems to report the exact same evidence as I didn't see him in the room but he may well have been I've no reason to thing he would lie. Without getting the full picture which I suppose we never will I don't think I could reach definite conclusions either way.

Yes, fair point though "not seeing him in the room" is pretty much the same thing.....it's not like it's a ballroom full of people or anything. There are an awful lot of apparent inconsistencies. Some people went ape over a much smaller number of apparent inconsistencies over 6 or 7 days evidence by the alleged victim.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 12:09:44 AM
Sure they were just being unbiased.. :-\
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 08, 2018, 01:38:21 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 11:53:52 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 07, 2018, 11:41:06 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 11:31:37 PM
The more I think about it today was bad for Jackson and I cannot understand why he was put on the stand. The defence must be hoping some of the jury are starstruck rugby fans or something.

He flat out contradicted the star defence witness Dara Florence.
He maintains his mates never told him that the girl left the house in hysterics and was alleging she was raped.
Agreed Olding and Harrison would have his back.
Agreed he thinks whatever upset the girl happened after she left his house.
Said the alleged victim was coming on to him all night yet immediately switched to giving oral sex to Olding who she had paid no attention to when he came into the room.
Appears to be telling lies about the term "spit roast" although he accepted he was involved in a "spit roast" with the alleged victim.
He admitted on the stand there was video of McIlroy and Olding going round with their trousers down in the house.
Contradicted McIlroy's account emphatically by saying he was never in the room.

His testimony is not believable. Individually it's possible some of these things might have happened but the likeliest thing is this is a c**k and bull story and the prosecution are right - the ranks closed to protect their guy.

The alleged victim was on the stand for 6 or 7 days and didn't miss a beat. Jackson was there for a mere 3.5 hours and produced pure rubbish.

Looking forward to Rory Best next week.

Not to saying you are right or wrong but when I read some of the Tweets about the case you could easily come to the exact opposition conclusion.

For example. One Tweeters account is he says McIlroy was. Ever in the room and didn't have sex with the complainant and is therefore a liar. the other Tweeter seems to report the exact same evidence as I didn't see him in the room but he may well have been I've no reason to thing he would lie. Without getting the full picture which I suppose we never will I don't think I could reach definite conclusions either way.

Yes, fair point though "not seeing him in the room" is pretty much the same thing.....it's not like it's a ballroom full of people or anything. There are an awful lot of apparent inconsistencies. Some people went ape over a much smaller number of apparent inconsistencies over 6 or 7 days evidence by the alleged victim.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying you are incorrect in your assertions at all the point I'm making is you could easily read one set of tweets as well he wasn't in the room whilst I was there whilst you could read the other tweets as he was never in the room at all. That's two entirely different interpretations on what appears to be the same piece of evidence. That's why I think it's so hard to be trying to analyse and re analyse the strength of the evidence either way based on the synopsises we are seeing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 08, 2018, 01:56:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 04:07:21 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 07, 2018, 04:04:23 PM
HIs interpretation of what a spit roast is won't do him any favours. Character reference from a young medical professional female though should sway things back for him.

Maybe some of the guys like BCB or DMcK might explain this to us. I thought there were only limited circumstances in which a character witness would be allowed before the jury give a decision? What weight would be attached to this testimony? Maybe his Mammy should be put on the stand to tell us he's a great fella.

A defendant is entitled to a good character direction from a judge and a character witnesses when they are of absolute good character (ie no previous convictions or reprehensible conduct alleged, admitted or proven) and they are of effective good character. Effective good character is a matter of law for the judge to decide whether a good character direction is necessary and permissible. There's a number of technial matters in respect of effective good character.

Good character can then relate to two things either a the defendants lack of propensity or his credibility. (Lack of propensity makes it more unlikely that he consider the offence alleged particularly relevant in more serious charges where people don't tend to have serious crimes as their first offence)

If a character witness is called their evidence has to relate to the overal character of the defendant and not simply an example or two.

The jury will be told that the defendants are entitled to good character directions and witnesses (assuming they are) but that like all other evidence in the cas what weight they place on it is a matter for the jury.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 09:05:25 AM
Quote from: Aaron Boone on March 07, 2018, 11:46:32 PM
The jury will defo have a night in a hotel, wherever that might be.

Ollie's??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 09:06:14 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 10:37:24 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 10:34:44 PM
As Tony has left (temporarily) Syferus has taken up the baton as the village twat

It's funny because you're the one who has exposed yourself as a neanderthal in this thread. That you don't have the self-awareness to see that is surprising.

;D ;D ;D

That gave me quite a chuckle this morning.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 08, 2018, 09:10:13 AM
When he took the stand Jackson went through his CV. Methody grammar school, captain of Ireland at u17 and U20 or whatever. Pretty impressive. And he ends up talking about what Stormy Daniels would call his junk in front of the world. If he is deemed guilty it will be a tragedy worthy of Shakespeare.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 09:10:54 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 10:37:24 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 07, 2018, 10:34:44 PM
As Tony has left (temporarily) Syferus has taken up the baton as the village twat

It's funny because you're the one who has exposed yourself as a neanderthal in this thread. That you don't have the self-awareness to see that is surprising.

Careful, there's a fella in big trouble for doing that (allegedly)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 08, 2018, 09:13:11 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 11:31:37 PM
The more I think about it today was bad for Jackson and I cannot understand why he was put on the stand. The defence must be hoping some of the jury are starstruck rugby fans or something.

He flat out contradicted the star defence witness Dara Florence.
He maintains his mates never told him that the girl left the house in hysterics and was alleging she was raped.
Agreed Olding and Harrison would have his back.
Agreed he thinks whatever upset the girl happened after she left his house.
Said the alleged victim was coming on to him all night yet immediately switched to giving oral sex to Olding who she had paid no attention to when he came into the room.
Appears to be telling lies about the term "spit roast" although he accepted he was involved in a "spit roast" with the alleged victim.
He admitted on the stand there was video of McIlroy and Olding going round with their trousers down in the house.
Contradicted McIlroy's account emphatically by saying he was never in the room.

His testimony is not believable. Individually it's possible some of these things might have happened but the likeliest thing is this is a c**k and bull story and the prosecution are right - the ranks closed to protect their guy.

The alleged victim was on the stand for 6 or 7 days and didn't miss a beat. Jackson was there for a mere 3.5 hours and produced pure rubbish.

Looking forward to Rory Best next week.
But Seanie, you are picking out bits that suit your argument.

Dara Florence was a prosecution witness.

From the texts read out it was clear that only Harrison had noticed she was in some kind distress hence he got in the taxi. None of the other men or women in the house saw this. In her own testimony she said it was only after she went downstairs that she started to break down.

Afterwards the texts suggest that Harrison only told McIlroy about her being upset. Neither of them mentioned the distress on the WhatsApp groups. So Jackson's testimony supports all that. Prosecution said surely they talked about it with Jackson, but he said they didn't and that he's disappointed in them that they didnt. Personally I think that is completely believeable. If they had told Jackson, whether he was guilty or not, he would have gone to the girl to try and sort it out.

To say the girl didnt have inconsistencies in her story means that you must have missed some of it. There were numerous times when she explained inconsistencies by saying he wasn't thinking straight given the circumstances. And little things like saying she didn't fancy Jackson, but not denying she may have been staring at him and she did consensually kiss him the first time.

Given everyone had a heap to drink, there are bound to be inconsistencies in everyone's stories.

Also I think there's been a helluva lot of half-arsed reporting on Jackson's testimony for some reason (and probably everyone else's too), particularly around McIlroy. Some reports saying Jackson said McIlroy never came in, yet clearly Jackson said he did come in as he spent the night in the room. There's doesn't seem to be anyone reporting the full list of questions and answers which would help fill in the missing links. The Irish Times report of Jackson's testimony didn't even mention the McIlroy bits, so their reporter thought it was less important.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 08, 2018, 09:14:17 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 11:31:37 PM
The more I think about it today was bad for Jackson and I cannot understand why he was put on the stand. The defence must be hoping some of the jury are starstruck rugby fans or something.

He flat out contradicted the star defence witness Dara Florence.
He maintains his mates never told him that the girl left the house in hysterics and was alleging she was raped.
Agreed Olding and Harrison would have his back.
Agreed he thinks whatever upset the girl happened after she left his house.
Said the alleged victim was coming on to him all night yet immediately switched to giving oral sex to Olding who she had paid no attention to when he came into the room.
Appears to be telling lies about the term "spit roast" although he accepted he was involved in a "spit roast" with the alleged victim.
He admitted on the stand there was video of McIlroy and Olding going round with their trousers down in the house.
Contradicted McIlroy's account emphatically by saying he was never in the room.

His testimony is not believable. Individually it's possible some of these things might have happened but the likeliest thing is this is a c**k and bull story and the prosecution are right - the ranks closed to protect their guy.

The alleged victim was on the stand for 6 or 7 days and didn't miss a beat. Jackson was there for a mere 3.5 hours and produced pure rubbish.

Looking forward to Rory Best next week.

Is she the defence star witness - the defence only started this week - she was called by the prosecution previously.   I will imagine she will be called again by the defence - with the defence likely saying can you be sure of what you seen going on in the room - or perhaps the defence wont call her
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 08, 2018, 09:19:58 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 08, 2018, 09:14:17 AM
Is she the defence star witness - the defence only started this week - she was called by the prosecution previously.   I will imagine she will be called again by the defence - with the defence likely saying can you be sure of what you seen going on in the room - or perhaps the defence wont call her
Prosecution witness. Defence had opportunity to cross-examine. As I understand it, she can't be called again unless in exceptional circumstances.

But some of her story supports the defence, some of it supports the prosecution.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 09:23:13 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 09:13:11 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 07, 2018, 11:31:37 PM
The more I think about it today was bad for Jackson and I cannot understand why he was put on the stand. The defence must be hoping some of the jury are starstruck rugby fans or something.

He flat out contradicted the star defence witness Dara Florence.
He maintains his mates never told him that the girl left the house in hysterics and was alleging she was raped.
Agreed Olding and Harrison would have his back.
Agreed he thinks whatever upset the girl happened after she left his house.
Said the alleged victim was coming on to him all night yet immediately switched to giving oral sex to Olding who she had paid no attention to when he came into the room.
Appears to be telling lies about the term "spit roast" although he accepted he was involved in a "spit roast" with the alleged victim.
He admitted on the stand there was video of McIlroy and Olding going round with their trousers down in the house.
Contradicted McIlroy's account emphatically by saying he was never in the room.

His testimony is not believable. Individually it's possible some of these things might have happened but the likeliest thing is this is a c**k and bull story and the prosecution are right - the ranks closed to protect their guy.

The alleged victim was on the stand for 6 or 7 days and didn't miss a beat. Jackson was there for a mere 3.5 hours and produced pure rubbish.

Looking forward to Rory Best next week.
But Seanie, you are picking out bits that suit your argument.

Dara Florence was a prosecution witness.

From the texts read out it was clear that only Harrison had noticed she was in some kind distress hence he got in the taxi. None of the other men or women in the house saw this. In her own testimony she said it was only after she went downstairs that she started to break down.

Afterwards the texts suggest that Harrison only told McIlroy about her being upset. Neither of them mentioned the distress on the WhatsApp groups. So Jackson's testimony supports all that. Prosecution said surely they talked about it with Jackson, but he said they didn't and that he's disappointed in them that they didnt. Personally I think that is completely believeable. If they had told Jackson, whether he was guilty or not, he would have gone to the girl to try and sort it out.

To say the girl didnt have inconsistencies in her story means that you must have missed some of it. There were numerous times when she explained inconsistencies by saying he wasn't thinking straight given the circumstances. And little things like saying she didn't fancy Jackson, but not denying she may have been staring at him and she did consensually kiss him the first time.

Given everyone had a heap to drink, there are bound to be inconsistencies in everyone's stories.

Also I think there's been a helluva lot of half-arsed reporting on Jackson's testimony for some reason (and probably everyone else's too), particularly around McIlroy. Some reports saying Jackson said McIlroy never came in, yet clearly Jackson said he did come in as he spent the night in the room. There's doesn't seem to be anyone reporting the full list of questions and answers which would help fill in the missing links. The Irish Times report of Jackson's testimony didn't even mention the McIlroy bits, so their reporter thought it was less important.

Yeah, I'm surprised that this exchange hasn't been covered in much detail (except for here!) as it seems to me that it's quite important if Jackson is contradicting McIlroy's statement.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 08, 2018, 09:23:27 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 09:19:58 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 08, 2018, 09:14:17 AM
Is she the defence star witness - the defence only started this week - she was called by the prosecution previously.   I will imagine she will be called again by the defence - with the defence likely saying can you be sure of what you seen going on in the room - or perhaps the defence wont call her
Prosecution witness. Defence had opportunity to cross-examine. As I understand it, she can't be called again unless in exceptional circumstances.

But some of her story supports the defence, some of it supports the prosecution.

Right wasnt away of that - shows what can happen with fireside lawyers
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2018, 09:36:23 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 08, 2018, 09:23:27 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 09:19:58 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 08, 2018, 09:14:17 AM
Is she the defence star witness - the defence only started this week - she was called by the prosecution previously.   I will imagine she will be called again by the defence - with the defence likely saying can you be sure of what you seen going on in the room - or perhaps the defence wont call her
Prosecution witness. Defence had opportunity to cross-examine. As I understand it, she can't be called again unless in exceptional circumstances.

But some of her story supports the defence, some of it supports the prosecution.

Right wasnt away of that - shows what can happen with fireside lawyers

Still waiting on Syferus showing me his qualification on the fireside lawyer degree he has.. 10 attempts, still waiting
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 09:57:34 AM
Mea culpa re: Dara Florence. She was of course a prosecution witness. Why I referred to her in those terms was because of the weight many seem to be giving to her evidence regarding the act she witnessed between Olding and the alleged victim.

I accept there were inconsistencies in the alleged victims story but I think her explanations were far more plausible and believable. Is that because I'm biased towards her or am I biased towards her because of this....I'm not sure. My gut feeling is she is trying to tell the truth. I do not believe the accused and their friends are trying to do this. I believe Dara Florence told the truth.

These are all my opinions gleaned from what information we can get so I accept the points people make. Just trying to explain why I think they're guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 08, 2018, 10:03:25 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 09:13:11 AM

Afterwards the texts suggest that Harrison only told McIlroy about her being upset. Neither of them mentioned the distress on the WhatsApp groups. So Jackson's testimony supports all that. Prosecution said surely they talked about it with Jackson, but he said they didn't and that he's disappointed in them that they didnt. Personally I think that is completely believeable. If they had told Jackson, whether he was guilty or not, he would have gone to the girl to try and sort it out.


Is it?? For me, that was completely unbelievable! If I was at a house party and a girl one of my friends had been with told me "what happened was not consensual", I'm pretty sure it's something I'd mention to him especially in the context of meeting him the next day for lunch.

Regardless of the evidence (and there's not a huge amount of conclusive hard evidence), this is probably going to come down to who comes across as more believable on the stand and that's presumably the reason the accused are taking the stand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 10:12:25 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 08, 2018, 10:03:25 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 09:13:11 AM

Afterwards the texts suggest that Harrison only told McIlroy about her being upset. Neither of them mentioned the distress on the WhatsApp groups. So Jackson's testimony supports all that. Prosecution said surely they talked about it with Jackson, but he said they didn't and that he's disappointed in them that they didnt. Personally I think that is completely believeable. If they had told Jackson, whether he was guilty or not, he would have gone to the girl to try and sort it out.


Is it?? For me, that was completely unbelievable! If I was at a house party and a girl one of my friends had been with told me "what happened was not consensual", I'm pretty sure it's something I'd mention to him especially in the context of meeting him the next day for lunch.

Regardless of the evidence (and there's not a huge amount of conclusive hard evidence), this is probably going to come down to who comes across as more believable on the stand and that's presumably the reason the accused are taking the stand.

I also find that unbelievable. There's no way in hell they didn't tell him.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 10:37:39 AM
Were there any questions on consent yesterday, i.e. was Jackson asked whether or not the girl resisted his advances?  What is her version of the consent stance with regard to Jackson alone?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 10:51:33 AM
Completely unbelievable that Harrison didnt mention to the boys at lunch that the girl had told them it wasnt consensual.

Thought i read somewhere he may have been trying to protect them - protect them from what?

I dont believe there are inconsistencies on the boys stories I believe some of them are telling lies about what happened but then they are telling different stories which confuses it more. One would think if telling lies they would have stories that at least add up.

Some of what the girl said doesnt add up either so I think part of her story is lies as well.

The reasonable doubt is what the case will come down to
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 10:52:17 AM
Olding on the stand.  It'll take to lunchtime to get through what he had to drink!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 08, 2018, 11:03:25 AM
Tbh I am not putting much credence on what I am hearing being reported as it is very staccato to say the least. Also it appears to me that not one witness so far has a clear recollection of what took place that night due to the amount of alcohol consumed. When a man accused of exposure instead claims he got a bj he is either very clever or very stupid.

This is a complete clusterf*** of a trial ...I am not sure how anyone including the jury will ever be able to pronounce a verdict with any degree of certainty. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:20:57 AM
Quote from: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 10:51:33 AM
Completely unbelievable that Harrison didnt mention to the boys at lunch that the girl had told them it wasnt consensual.

Thought i read somewhere he may have been trying to protect them - protect them from what?


I think it is believable that these lads would have it in their head they'd be protecting their big star. And I'd find it hard to believe that if they did tell PJ and SO, that they wouldnt try and speak to her to try and calm it all down.

But whether they did or didnt, it doesn't really make any difference to whether there was consent or not.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:29:55 AM
Rosanna Cooney
Olding says when he stayed at Paddy's house, where he stayed 2/3 times a month, he would stay in Paddy's bed or on the sofa.


I'd like to see a picture of Paddy's bed for some context - must be feckin huge !
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 11:30:21 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:20:57 AM
Quote from: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 10:51:33 AM
Completely unbelievable that Harrison didnt mention to the boys at lunch that the girl had told them it wasnt consensual.

Thought i read somewhere he may have been trying to protect them - protect them from what?


I think it is believable that these lads would have it in their head they'd be protecting their big star. And I'd find it hard to believe that if they did tell PJ and SO, that they wouldnt try and speak to her to try and calm it all down.

But whether they did or didnt, it doesn't really make any difference to whether there was consent or not.

You've gotten very defensive about the continual inconsistencies by the defense.

And all this inconsistency and incredulous statements very much contribute to how believable they are when they say there was consent. I can't really see how anyone could say otherwise.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 11:35:21 AM
It's a deliberate attempt to create confusion. There's no way a group of lads wouldn't discuss the night before especially with a young one leaving in tears and saying the activity wasn't consensual. If it comes down to believability I think it's only going one way.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 11:40:30 AM
What is her view on how she communicated her non-consent?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 08, 2018, 11:40:41 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:20:57 AM
Quote from: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 10:51:33 AM
Completely unbelievable that Harrison didnt mention to the boys at lunch that the girl had told them it wasnt consensual.

Thought i read somewhere he may have been trying to protect them - protect them from what?


I think it is believable that these lads would have it in their head they'd be protecting their big star. And I'd find it hard to believe that if they did tell PJ and SO, that they wouldnt try and speak to her to try and calm it all down.

But whether they did or didnt, it doesn't really make any difference to whether there was consent or not.
I will have to disagree with you there.  I find that incredibly hard to believe.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 11:41:27 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 11:30:21 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:20:57 AM
Quote from: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 10:51:33 AM
Completely unbelievable that Harrison didnt mention to the boys at lunch that the girl had told them it wasnt consensual.

Thought i read somewhere he may have been trying to protect them - protect them from what?


I think it is believable that these lads would have it in their head they'd be protecting their big star. And I'd find it hard to believe that if they did tell PJ and SO, that they wouldnt try and speak to her to try and calm it all down.

But whether they did or didnt, it doesn't really make any difference to whether there was consent or not.

You've gotten very defensive about the continual inconsistencies by the defense.

And all this inconsistency and incredulous statements very much contribute to how believable they are when they say there was consent. I can't really see how anyone could say otherwise.

Consistentencies in both defence and prosecution but then a legal genius with all your qualifications would have already seen this
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 11:44:46 AM
Olding says when he went into the room the complainant was "on top of Paddy" and was fully clothed.  He didn't see any oral sex going on. (Contradiction here from Jackson's evidence)

The complaining then performed oral sex on him and he didn't force her.  He asked her (not ordered her) to take off her top and she did. 

He wasn't aware of anyone else entering the room - perhaps because the person didn't come into the room fully or perhaps because of his drunkenness.

Adamant that he didn't force the complainant to perform oral sex on him.

The complainant didn't say anything that made him think she wasn't consenting.  When he left to clean himself he assumed sexual activity between Jackson and the complainant would continue.

McIlroy was never in the room while he (Olding) was there.

All defence questioning.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 11:45:44 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:29:55 AM
Rosanna Cooney
Olding says when he stayed at Paddy's house, where he stayed 2/3 times a month, he would stay in Paddy's bed or on the sofa.

I'd like to see a picture of Paddy's bed for some context - must be feckin huge !

Would help if Blane would get out of it the odd time!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:54:52 AM
Clearly not a co-ordinated defence from the lads!

But with everyone drunk, nobody will remember things the same way.

I can't imagine they'll let McIlroy up there.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 11:58:11 AM
This from Rosanna Cooney:

Olding says when he (a?) friend messaged him to ask "How was she?" The "she" referred to the night not the complainant...as in if your mate got a new car you'd say "How is she?"

Asked about his response to "Any sluts get fucked?" he said "Precious secrets" was a reference to Lord of the Rings and a "nonsense comment".

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 12:01:22 PM
More definitions of "spit-roasting"...Olding says it's a woman between two men and sexual activity going on

Asked about his message about "a merry go round at a carnival", he says it was nonsense and he didn't mean anything by it.

"Top shaggers" was immature boasting
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 08, 2018, 12:06:19 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/stuart-olding-tells-rugby-rape-trial-i-didnt-force-her-in-any-way-36683391.html

"STUART OLDING has told Belfast Crown Court that the day before an alleged attack he and "close friend" Paddy Jackson went to co-accused Blane McIlroy's house at around 4pm. He had a pizza and eight cans of beer.

They later went to a bar where he had burger and chips, a few pints of Guinness and a few gin and tonics. They then went to Ollie's nightclub at about midnight where he had five vodka and lemonades and a few shots."

To say he must have been pissed as a fart would be an insult to farts.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on March 08, 2018, 12:20:34 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 11:40:30 AM
What is her view on how she communicated her non-consent?
I think, but could be wrong, that she told Jackson "to at least use a condom" and then when Olding came in she said "not him too". Maybe someone else could clarify.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 12:21:01 PM
Olding says that while in the cell at the police station someone told him that Ulster Rugby had sent a solicitor (Joe Rice) and would he like him to represent him.  Small point, but I was wondering why Jackson had been asked yesterday had Ulster Rugby provided him with a solicitor.  He said "no".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 08, 2018, 12:32:25 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:20:57 AM
Quote from: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 10:51:33 AM
Completely unbelievable that Harrison didnt mention to the boys at lunch that the girl had told them it wasnt consensual.

Thought i read somewhere he may have been trying to protect them - protect them from what?


I think it is believable that these lads would have it in their head they'd be protecting their big star. And I'd find it hard to believe that if they did tell PJ and SO, that they wouldnt try and speak to her to try and calm it all down.

But whether they did or didnt, it doesn't really make any difference to whether there was consent or not.

You're right about that it won't directly have any bearing on the issue of consent but I think it may affect their credibility - if the jury don't believe the story being told by the accused, they're less likely to believe them on the issue of consent imo
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 08, 2018, 12:43:13 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:54:52 AM
Clearly not a co-ordinated defence from the lads!

But with everyone drunk, nobody will remember things the same way.

I can't imagine they'll let McIlroy up there.

A coordinated defence would reak of conspiracy tbh, I'd imagine they don't have a clue what happened, really anyone in that house.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 12:51:34 PM
Prosecution questioning Olding now.  None of the other defence barristers had any questions for him.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on March 08, 2018, 12:53:15 PM
The guys' version of events seems more plausible than the girl's. Even with all missing pieces.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 12:59:20 PM
Quote from: trailer on March 08, 2018, 12:53:15 PM
The guys' version of events seems more plausible than the girl's. Even with all missing pieces.

I honestly don't know how anyone can come to that conclusion.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 08, 2018, 01:01:03 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 08, 2018, 12:43:13 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:54:52 AM
Clearly not a co-ordinated defence from the lads!

But with everyone drunk, nobody will remember things the same way.

I can't imagine they'll let McIlroy up there.

A coordinated defence would reak of conspiracy tbh, I'd imagine they don't have a clue what happened, really anyone in that house.
Yeah, there's very different tactics taken by prosecution and defence.

The girl was superbly prepared, she was ready for every question, knew exactly how to answer it, and had a stock answer for any time she did find herself in a muddle.

The lads are all over the place. Prosecution trying to set traps for Olding with hypothetical questions and he seems to be walking into all of them. He's answering questions the way the prosecution counsel wants him to.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 01:04:36 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 08, 2018, 12:43:13 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:54:52 AM
Clearly not a co-ordinated defence from the lads!

But with everyone drunk, nobody will remember things the same way.

I can't imagine they'll let McIlroy up there.

A coordinated defence would reak of conspiracy tbh, I'd imagine they don't have a clue what happened, really anyone in that house.

I think the lads don't really know what happened. I think the alleged victim is pretty clear on most of it. I agree the coordinated defence might possibly look like a conspiracy given the amount of drink they had and I think this is a tactic that was decided on. They're only out to create doubt and lead people to that conclusion - "who knows what went on".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 01:08:51 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 01:01:03 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 08, 2018, 12:43:13 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:54:52 AM
Clearly not a co-ordinated defence from the lads!

But with everyone drunk, nobody will remember things the same way.

I can't imagine they'll let McIlroy up there.

A coordinated defence would reak of conspiracy tbh, I'd imagine they don't have a clue what happened, really anyone in that house.
Yeah, there's very different tactics taken by prosecution and defence.

The girl was superbly prepared, she was ready for every question, knew exactly how to answer it, and had a stock answer for any time she did find herself in a muddle.

The lads are all over the place. Prosecution trying to set traps for Olding with hypothetical questions and he seems to be walking into all of them. He's answering questions the way the prosecution counsel wants him to.

The victim was on the stand for over a week. That the defendants are setting themselves on fire with barely a few hours on the stand speaks volumes in itself.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 08, 2018, 01:17:04 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 12:59:20 PM
Quote from: trailer on March 08, 2018, 12:53:15 PM
The guys' version of events seems more plausible than the girl's. Even with all missing pieces.

I honestly don't know how anyone can come to that conclusion.

For me it comes down to that she was actually in charge. It ended when she decided it ended. Even if she was too numb to realise that, how can that be the lads' fault when they did nothing to threaten violence or force? One scream, in a situation where no violence has been threatened, stops it. And the witness saying it looked like a regular threesome even though she didnt see the act of consent, for me, supports that.

I definitely have doubt over Jackson, but not enough to convict, based on what I heard.

I'd be very quick in acquitting Olding, based on what  heard.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on March 08, 2018, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 01:17:04 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 12:59:20 PM
Quote from: trailer on March 08, 2018, 12:53:15 PM
The guys' version of events seems more plausible than the girl's. Even with all missing pieces.

I honestly don't know how anyone can come to that conclusion.

For me it comes down to that she was actually in charge. It ended when she decided it ended. Even if she was too numb to realise that, how can that be the lads' fault when they did nothing to threaten violence or force? One scream, in a situation where no violence has been threatened, stops it. And the witness saying it looked like a regular threesome even though she didnt see the act of consent, for me, supports that.

I definitely have doubt over Jackson, but not enough to convict, based on what I heard.

I'd be very quick in acquitting Olding, based on what  heard.
Because she said "No" to them, according to her.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 01:20:20 PM
It is a total he said/she said scenario.

If the independent witness said it didnt look like rape is this what it will come down to?

I cant see any other scenario given the holes/inconsistencies in both sides
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on March 08, 2018, 01:22:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 01:20:20 PM
It is a total he said/she said scenario.

If the independent witness said it didnt look like rape is this what it will come down to?

I cant see any other scenario given the holes/inconsistencies in both sides
She also said she saw thrusting and therefore intercourse, which Jackson denies. If we accept that the lads can't remember exactly what happened that night, I think we can also accept that Jackson knows whether he had intercourse or not. So there's another lie there, from one side or the other.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 01:25:14 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 01:20:20 PM
It is a total he said/she said scenario.

If the independent witness said it didnt look like rape is this what it will come down to?

I cant see any other scenario given the holes/inconsistencies in both sides

She wasn't an independent witness, she was appearing for the prosecution (thought sometimes it didn't sound like it!). The question then is "what does rape look like?" - given that most women do not resist during rape/sexual assault (that from a defence witness)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 01:28:26 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 01:25:14 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 01:20:20 PM
It is a total he said/she said scenario.

If the independent witness said it didnt look like rape is this what it will come down to?

I cant see any other scenario given the holes/inconsistencies in both sides

She wasn't an independent witness, she was appearing for the prosecution (thought sometimes it didn't sound like it!). The question then is "what does rape look like?" - given that most women do not resist during rape/sexual assault (that from a defence witness)

As someone said this could be the defence's plan.

To make everything look like a complete shambles/inaccuracies and that it comes down to 'what does rape look like' and does the witness say it was rape.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 08, 2018, 01:29:35 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 08, 2018, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 01:17:04 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 12:59:20 PM
Quote from: trailer on March 08, 2018, 12:53:15 PM
The guys' version of events seems more plausible than the girl's. Even with all missing pieces.

I honestly don't know how anyone can come to that conclusion.

For me it comes down to that she was actually in charge. It ended when she decided it ended. Even if she was too numb to realise that, how can that be the lads' fault when they did nothing to threaten violence or force? One scream, in a situation where no violence has been threatened, stops it. And the witness saying it looked like a regular threesome even though she didnt see the act of consent, for me, supports that.

I definitely have doubt over Jackson, but not enough to convict, based on what I heard.

I'd be very quick in acquitting Olding, based on what  heard.
Because she said "No" to them, according to her.
Agreed, although that's disputed. And without being there we can have no idea about tone and body language which as we all know is very important in deciphering what anyone is saying.

But a scream or walking out would have been the end of it. That for me is the key for the lads figuring about that consent had not been given. The frozen stuff I would 100% get if there was some violence or threat of violence, but that wasn't the case here. There was no worse consequence. She also knew there were other women in the house, she even saw one of them during it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 08, 2018, 01:30:32 PM
It is obvious from the expectation of most posters that there will be agreement between observers of the same incidents that they have never been involved in investigations which require multiple witnesses to give evidence of their observations. 

It is very common for witnesses to give reports of the same incidents and provide what may be contradictory or unconnected versions of the same events.  In the same way, courts now do not rely as heavily on witness identification evidence because it is more often than not unreliable and contradictory.

Every witness will report a series of events from their own perspective and not with the overview that can only be provided by video.  Investigators recognise that this disparity in witness accounts and will probably be more alarmed when the same account is provided by all witnesses.  As members of the public we are conditioned by TV to expect that witness accounts should be synchronous and contradiction is an indication of guilt.

Therefore, witness accounts need to be backed up by forensic evidence before they alone can be relied upon to achieve a conviction. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 01:31:38 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 08, 2018, 12:20:34 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 11:40:30 AM
What is her view on how she communicated her non-consent?
I think, but could be wrong, that she told Jackson "to at least use a condom" and then when Olding came in she said "not him too". Maybe someone else could clarify.

So she didn't say no?  To the average joe (which the jury comprises of too) it looks more like she consented than she didn't.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Link on March 08, 2018, 01:31:46 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 01:01:03 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 08, 2018, 12:43:13 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:54:52 AM
Clearly not a co-ordinated defence from the lads!

But with everyone drunk, nobody will remember things the same way.

I can't imagine they'll let McIlroy up there.

A coordinated defence would reak of conspiracy tbh, I'd imagine they don't have a clue what happened, really anyone in that house.
Yeah, there's very different tactics taken by prosecution and defence.

The girl was superbly prepared, she was ready for every question, knew exactly how to answer it, and had a stock answer for any time she did find herself in a muddle.

The lads are all over the place. Prosecution trying to set traps for Olding with hypothetical questions and he seems to be walking into all of them. He's answering questions the way the prosecution counsel wants him to.

What are these traps you speak off?

I've read through both the Cooney and Greaney twitter feeds and feel Olding has handled himself well and seems to be speaking truthfully with very little vague answers. Don't think Jackson was "all over the place" yesterday either.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TyroneOnlooker on March 08, 2018, 01:36:44 PM
Syferus, i've been reading this thread with interest over the course of the trial and most posters seem fairly rationale.

I think any person reading through the tweets we've all seen would be left at the same position - i.e. who the hell knows what actually happened here, every single persons' account is different and it's extremely difficult to try and establish who is telling the truth. I have yet to speak to one person who can say hand on heart they strongly believe either side.

I find it baffling how you can be so strongly adamant of guilt by the rugby players when you're getting the exact same info as the rest of joe public are getting.

What makes so much against them? Is it personal?

This place is a place for opinions, no-one's disputing that. But your continued tirades against other posters who are of a different opinion or merely question your opinion is quite strange.

Do you know something about this story the rest of us don't?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 01:37:19 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 01:20:20 PM
It is a total he said/she said scenario.

If the independent witness said it didnt look like rape is this what it will come down to?

I cant see any other scenario given the holes/inconsistencies in both sides

It's really hard to tell the WUM accounts apart from the ones who are earnestly biased against the victim in this thread.

In the end does it even matter if it has the same chilling effect?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 08, 2018, 01:38:47 PM
Quote from: Link on March 08, 2018, 01:31:46 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 01:01:03 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 08, 2018, 12:43:13 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:54:52 AM
Clearly not a co-ordinated defence from the lads!

But with everyone drunk, nobody will remember things the same way.

I can't imagine they'll let McIlroy up there.

A coordinated defence would reak of conspiracy tbh, I'd imagine they don't have a clue what happened, really anyone in that house.
Yeah, there's very different tactics taken by prosecution and defence.

The girl was superbly prepared, she was ready for every question, knew exactly how to answer it, and had a stock answer for any time she did find herself in a muddle.

The lads are all over the place. Prosecution trying to set traps for Olding with hypothetical questions and he seems to be walking into all of them. He's answering questions the way the prosecution counsel wants him to.

What are these traps you speak off?

I've read through both the Cooney and Greaney twitter feeds and feel Olding has handled himself well and seems to be speaking truthfully with very little vague answers. Don't think Jackson was "all over the place" yesterday either.

By "all over the place" I meant giving differing stories. Jackson was very calm and composed yesterday by all accounts.

The traps comment was from the below piece. From Olding's perspective, I think he should have been elaborating each time, like the girl did for her answers to the questions she got from defence. But I'm a barstooler of course, and twitter is wholly unreliable and may only have summarised SO's responses.

From Cooney

Prosecution: "you were not interested in what the woman wanted to do or was prepared to do, she was just a vehicle for your own sexual desires that night."
Olding: "No ,I wouldn't put it that way"
Prosecution: "There comes a stage that night where you and Paddy jackson are in the bedroom with that woman. You are both prof rugby players, your work is physically demanding, using not only us skill and strength in an attempt to over power your opposition"
Olding: "yes"
P:What match is a 19 year old woman going to be for the pair of you?
SO:If she had resisted in any way I wouldn't have carried on
P:What match would that young woman have been for the pair of you if she didn't want to do what you were doing?
SO: I don't think she would have been a match.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 08, 2018, 01:46:30 PM
Quote from: TyroneOnlooker on March 08, 2018, 01:36:44 PM
Syferus, i've been reading this thread with interest over the course of the trial and most posters seem fairly rationale.

I think any person reading through the tweets we've all seen would be left at the same position - i.e. who the hell knows what actually happened here, every single persons' account is different and it's extremely difficult to try and establish who is telling the truth. I have yet to speak to one person who can say hand on heart they strongly believe either side.

I find it baffling how you can be so strongly adamant of guilt by the rugby players when you're getting the exact same info as the rest of joe public are getting.

What makes so much against them? Is it personal?

This place is a place for opinions, no-one's disputing that. But your continued tirades against other posters who are of a different opinion or merely question your opinion is quite strange.

Do you know something about this story the rest of us don't?
He knew about the bruises on the thighs before everyone else.
Albeit, they didn't actually exist.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 01:53:04 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 01:46:30 PM
Quote from: TyroneOnlooker on March 08, 2018, 01:36:44 PM
Syferus, i've been reading this thread with interest over the course of the trial and most posters seem fairly rationale.

I think any person reading through the tweets we've all seen would be left at the same position - i.e. who the hell knows what actually happened here, every single persons' account is different and it's extremely difficult to try and establish who is telling the truth. I have yet to speak to one person who can say hand on heart they strongly believe either side.

I find it baffling how you can be so strongly adamant of guilt by the rugby players when you're getting the exact same info as the rest of joe public are getting.

What makes so much against them? Is it personal?

This place is a place for opinions, no-one's disputing that. But your continued tirades against other posters who are of a different opinion or merely question your opinion is quite strange.

Do you know something about this story the rest of us don't?
He knew about the bruises on the thighs before everyone else.
Albeit, they didn't actually exist.

You're the fella who said with a straight face two hours ago that the reams of inconsistencies in the defendants' stories don't make a difference to the issue of consent. Up there with the most remarkable things said by anyone in this sorry thread. Look closer to home when trying to find problems next time.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 08, 2018, 01:53:55 PM
Quote from: TyroneOnlooker on March 08, 2018, 01:36:44 PM
Syferus, i've been reading this thread with interest over the course of the trial and most posters seem fairly rationale.

I think any person reading through the tweets we've all seen would be left at the same position - i.e. who the hell knows what actually happened here, every single persons' account is different and it's extremely difficult to try and establish who is telling the truth. I have yet to speak to one person who can say hand on heart they strongly believe either side.

I find it baffling how you can be so strongly adamant of guilt by the rugby players when you're getting the exact same info as the rest of joe public are getting.

What makes so much against them? Is it personal?

This place is a place for opinions, no-one's disputing that. But your continued tirades against other posters who are of a different opinion or merely question your opinion is quite strange.

Do you know something about this story the rest of us don't?
When virtue signalling rational thought goes out the window.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 08, 2018, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 01:04:36 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 08, 2018, 12:43:13 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:54:52 AM
Clearly not a co-ordinated defence from the lads!

But with everyone drunk, nobody will remember things the same way.

I can't imagine they'll let McIlroy up there.

A coordinated defence would reak of conspiracy tbh, I'd imagine they don't have a clue what happened, really anyone in that house.

I think the lads don't really know what happened. I think the alleged victim is pretty clear on most of it. I agree the coordinated defence might possibly look like a conspiracy given the amount of drink they had and I think this is a tactic that was decided on. They're only out to create doubt and lead people to that conclusion - "who knows what went on".

Pretty much agreed on that, Dara Florence's evidence for me was the key in it all.

Even though she was only in the room briefly, her words I imagine will make it very hard for anyone to convict "beyond reasonable doubt".

That does not mean there wasn't an attack IMO, I just don't see how anyone can convict anyone with certainty on this.

Thought Olding came off quite well to be honest (albeit on basis of tweets), quite clever considering the lady in question described him and monkey-like and an imbecile.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 02:13:49 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 08, 2018, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 01:04:36 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 08, 2018, 12:43:13 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:54:52 AM
Clearly not a co-ordinated defence from the lads!

But with everyone drunk, nobody will remember things the same way.

I can't imagine they'll let McIlroy up there.

A coordinated defence would reak of conspiracy tbh, I'd imagine they don't have a clue what happened, really anyone in that house.

I think the lads don't really know what happened. I think the alleged victim is pretty clear on most of it. I agree the coordinated defence might possibly look like a conspiracy given the amount of drink they had and I think this is a tactic that was decided on. They're only out to create doubt and lead people to that conclusion - "who knows what went on".

Pretty much agreed on that, Dara Florence's evidence for me was the key in it all.

Even though she was only in the room briefly, her words I imagine will make it very hard for anyone to convict "beyond reasonable doubt".

That does not mean there wasn't an attack IMO, I just don't see how anyone can convict anyone with certainty on this.

Thought Olding came off quite well to be honest (albeit on basis of tweets), quite clever considering the lady in question described him and monkey-like and an imbecile.

I think after all that drink we might all be monkey like and imbecilic.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 02:15:10 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 02:13:49 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 08, 2018, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 01:04:36 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 08, 2018, 12:43:13 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:54:52 AM
Clearly not a co-ordinated defence from the lads!

But with everyone drunk, nobody will remember things the same way.

I can't imagine they'll let McIlroy up there.

A coordinated defence would reak of conspiracy tbh, I'd imagine they don't have a clue what happened, really anyone in that house.

I think the lads don't really know what happened. I think the alleged victim is pretty clear on most of it. I agree the coordinated defence might possibly look like a conspiracy given the amount of drink they had and I think this is a tactic that was decided on. They're only out to create doubt and lead people to that conclusion - "who knows what went on".

Pretty much agreed on that, Dara Florence's evidence for me was the key in it all.

Even though she was only in the room briefly, her words I imagine will make it very hard for anyone to convict "beyond reasonable doubt".

That does not mean there wasn't an attack IMO, I just don't see how anyone can convict anyone with certainty on this.

Thought Olding came off quite well to be honest (albeit on basis of tweets), quite clever considering the lady in question described him and monkey-like and an imbecile.

I think after all that drink we might all be monkey like and imbecilic.

Guilty
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 02:16:33 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 02:13:49 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 08, 2018, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 01:04:36 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 08, 2018, 12:43:13 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 11:54:52 AM
Clearly not a co-ordinated defence from the lads!

But with everyone drunk, nobody will remember things the same way.

I can't imagine they'll let McIlroy up there.

A coordinated defence would reak of conspiracy tbh, I'd imagine they don't have a clue what happened, really anyone in that house.

I think the lads don't really know what happened. I think the alleged victim is pretty clear on most of it. I agree the coordinated defence might possibly look like a conspiracy given the amount of drink they had and I think this is a tactic that was decided on. They're only out to create doubt and lead people to that conclusion - "who knows what went on".

Pretty much agreed on that, Dara Florence's evidence for me was the key in it all.

Even though she was only in the room briefly, her words I imagine will make it very hard for anyone to convict "beyond reasonable doubt".

That does not mean there wasn't an attack IMO, I just don't see how anyone can convict anyone with certainty on this.

Thought Olding came off quite well to be honest (albeit on basis of tweets), quite clever considering the lady in question described him and monkey-like and an imbecile.

I think after all that drink we might all be monkey like and imbecilic.

;D
After that amount of sauce I would take it as a compliment if I looked like that.

They didn't seem to go into in details as much about what PJ drank. Just more a general overview
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 08, 2018, 02:23:09 PM
I am looking forward to the summing up
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 02:25:46 PM
They seem to be getting way more stuck in to Olding. . . does it often happen that when the prosecution says "This is all lies is it not?" the defendant suddenly goes "actually yeah I made it up!"

Sounds like he's really trying to crush him is this the prosecution throwing a Hail Mary because they can't get beyond reasonable doubt unless one of them breaks?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: spuds on March 08, 2018, 02:31:02 PM
Every media report on this case that is preceded by a warning that some people may find the following upsetting I picture poor Syfeus in the back seat of his parents 7 seater with his eyes big as plates.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: square_ball on March 08, 2018, 02:32:56 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 02:25:46 PM
They seem to be getting way more stuck in to Olding. . . does it often happen that when the prosecution says "This is all lies is it not?" the defendant suddenly goes "actually yeah I made it up!"

Sounds like he's really trying to crush him is this the prosecution throwing a Hail Mary because they can't get beyond reasonable doubt unless one of them breaks?!

You'd wonder why they didn't get stuck into Jackson like the grilling they appear to giving Olding at the minute?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 08, 2018, 02:35:23 PM
Quote from: square_ball on March 08, 2018, 02:32:56 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 02:25:46 PM
They seem to be getting way more stuck in to Olding. . . does it often happen that when the prosecution says "This is all lies is it not?" the defendant suddenly goes "actually yeah I made it up!"

Sounds like he's really trying to crush him is this the prosecution throwing a Hail Mary because they can't get beyond reasonable doubt unless one of them breaks?!

You'd wonder why they didn't get stuck into Jackson like the grilling they appear to giving Olding at the minute?

Honestly, Olding seems the most innocent of the two charged with rape.

Is there something here that Jackson doesn't look like butter would melt whereas Olding is a bit. 'rougher' for want of a better word?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 02:35:56 PM
Quote from: square_ball on March 08, 2018, 02:32:56 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 02:25:46 PM
They seem to be getting way more stuck in to Olding. . . does it often happen that when the prosecution says "This is all lies is it not?" the defendant suddenly goes "actually yeah I made it up!"

Sounds like he's really trying to crush him is this the prosecution throwing a Hail Mary because they can't get beyond reasonable doubt unless one of them breaks?!

You'd wonder why they didn't get stuck into Jackson like the grilling they appear to giving Olding at the minute?

Maybe the prosecution think the case is harder to prove against Olding?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitey on March 08, 2018, 02:36:14 PM
The victim willingly went back to the house, willingly went up to the bedroom and willingly took her clothes off.

So obviously she was planning on having a sexual encounter with someone, but it seems like she had a change of heart.

Once she changed her mind and expressed this to who ever was in the room with her did they stop?

Did she scream holy blue murder or did she just ask them to stop?

These lads were full to the gills with drink.....how much did the victim have to drink?

It seems like it may have started off as some kind of consensual encounter, but quickly escalated into something the victim never anticipated and maybe didnt realize there was more than one person in the room with her.   

These lads are definitely guilty of acting the cvnt, but I dont know if ther is enoug certainty for a rape conviction




Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on March 08, 2018, 02:46:23 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 01:29:35 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 08, 2018, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2018, 01:17:04 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 12:59:20 PM
Quote from: trailer on March 08, 2018, 12:53:15 PM
The guys' version of events seems more plausible than the girl's. Even with all missing pieces.

I honestly don't know how anyone can come to that conclusion.

For me it comes down to that she was actually in charge. It ended when she decided it ended. Even if she was too numb to realise that, how can that be the lads' fault when they did nothing to threaten violence or force? One scream, in a situation where no violence has been threatened, stops it. And the witness saying it looked like a regular threesome even though she didnt see the act of consent, for me, supports that.

I definitely have doubt over Jackson, but not enough to convict, based on what I heard.

I'd be very quick in acquitting Olding, based on what  heard.
Because she said "No" to them, according to her.
Agreed, although that's disputed. And without being there we can have no idea about tone and body language which as we all know is very important in deciphering what anyone is saying.

But a scream or walking out would have been the end of it. That for me is the key for the lads figuring about that consent had not been given. The frozen stuff I would 100% get if there was some violence or threat of violence, but that wasn't the case here. There was no worse consequence. She also knew there were other women in the house, she even saw one of them during it.
I'm not sure tone is relevant although I can't recall what it is that the girl claims to have said to Jackson. Did she tell him outright that she didn't want sex?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 03:11:53 PM
Quote from: spuds on March 08, 2018, 02:31:02 PM
Every media report on this case that is preceded by a warning that some people may find the following upsetting I picture poor Syfeus in the back seat of his parents 7 seater with his eyes big as plates.

Your obsession with me amid a case about a horrible gang rape doesn't reflect well on you. Butchered by your own hand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 03:20:20 PM
Olding is finished.  Just under 3 hrs on the stand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 08, 2018, 03:20:37 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 03:11:53 PM
Quote from: spuds on March 08, 2018, 02:31:02 PM
Every media report on this case that is preceded by a warning that some people may find the following upsetting I picture poor Syfeus in the back seat of his parents 7 seater with his eyes big as plates.

Your obsession with me amid a case about a horrible gang rape doesn't reflect well on you. Butchered by your own hand.

Careful Syf.

No one has been found guilty or innocent in most sane peoples minds or in the judicial system yet
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 03:25:45 PM
does this make page 200 before the verdict ???

i have totally given up on speculation as when one looks as the disparity of tweets from those reporting on the case none of us have a clue what actually has been happening
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:27:00 PM
What is Olding charged with?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 08, 2018, 03:28:58 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 08, 2018, 03:25:45 PM
does this make page 200 before the verdict ???

i have totally given up on speculation as when one looks as the disparity of tweets from those reporting on the case none of us have a clue what actually has been happening
Absolutely. While I have my views based on the limited information I have read, I will accept whatever the jury come up with as the correct verdict, as they are the only ones who have heard everything
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
I presume that the decision here is a black or white one ie. either guilty or not guilty, because all I can see here is a lot of grey areas and on that basis it is hard to make the case that they are absolutely guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then we are only going on media reporting which can often give different impressions even on the same event from 2 different reporters. I think both parties genuinely believe that they have been wronged ( in terms of the allegations for the accused) and I have full sympathy for the woman because she is ultimately the one that has suffered the most. I do not envy the jurors in this case. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
I presume that the decision here is a black or white one ie. either guilty or not guilty, because all I can see here is a lot of grey areas and on that basis it is hard to make the case that they are absolutely guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then we are only going on media reporting which can often give different impressions even on the same event from 2 different reporters. I think both parties genuinely believe that they have been wronged ( in terms of the allegations for the accused) and I have full sympathy for the woman because she is ultimately the one that has suffered the most. I do not envy the jurors in this case.

If she is infact the victim then of course she has suffered the most but that remains to be seen. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
I presume that the decision here is a black or white one ie. either guilty or not guilty, because all I can see here is a lot of grey areas and on that basis it is hard to make the case that they are absolutely guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then we are only going on media reporting which can often give different impressions even on the same event from 2 different reporters. I think both parties genuinely believe that they have been wronged ( in terms of the allegations for the accused) and I have full sympathy for the woman because she is ultimately the one that has suffered the most. I do not envy the jurors in this case.

If she is infact the victim then of course she has suffered the most but that remains to be seen.

I think it's fair to say she's suffered whatever way things might pan out from here on in!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 03:50:18 PM
Trial is done for today after former Ulster player Declan Fitzpatrick appeared as a character witness for Jackson.  No prosecution questions for him.
Defence says it has one more character witness to call for Jackson. 

Back tomorrow morning and court will sit tomorrow afternoon and Saturday morning as well.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
I presume that the decision here is a black or white one ie. either guilty or not guilty, because all I can see here is a lot of grey areas and on that basis it is hard to make the case that they are absolutely guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then we are only going on media reporting which can often give different impressions even on the same event from 2 different reporters. I think both parties genuinely believe that they have been wronged ( in terms of the allegations for the accused) and I have full sympathy for the woman because she is ultimately the one that has suffered the most. I do not envy the jurors in this case.

If she is infact the victim then of course she has suffered the most but that remains to be seen.

I think it's fair to say she's suffered whatever way things might pan out from here on in!

Careful now, women who are raped must be treated with at best mistrust with no regard for the emotional toll involved in bringing a rape to trial or the peanut gallery will get hot under the collar.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Applesisapples on March 08, 2018, 03:52:28 PM
Reasonable doubt, I can't get past. Then I ask myself why would she put herself through that, I just can't decide.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:57:00 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
I presume that the decision here is a black or white one ie. either guilty or not guilty, because all I can see here is a lot of grey areas and on that basis it is hard to make the case that they are absolutely guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then we are only going on media reporting which can often give different impressions even on the same event from 2 different reporters. I think both parties genuinely believe that they have been wronged ( in terms of the allegations for the accused) and I have full sympathy for the woman because she is ultimately the one that has suffered the most. I do not envy the jurors in this case.

If she is infact the victim then of course she has suffered the most but that remains to be seen.

I think it's fair to say she's suffered whatever way things might pan out from here on in!

But whether she has suffered the most is another thing. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 04:03:35 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 08, 2018, 03:52:28 PM
Reasonable doubt, I can't get past. Then I ask myself why would she put herself through that, I just can't decide.

Yeah, she gives evidence for 6 or 7 days and has her knickers and bra paraded around the court whereas Olding is asked what he got in his A Levels and how many times he played for Ireland! 

But of course they couldn't find Olding's clothes to parade around the court ;)

Seriously though, I've a grown up daughter (in her 20s) I'm not sure I'd want her to go through what the complainant has gone through no matter what happened to her :-\
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on March 08, 2018, 04:08:48 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
I presume that the decision here is a black or white one ie. either guilty or not guilty, because all I can see here is a lot of grey areas and on that basis it is hard to make the case that they are absolutely guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then we are only going on media reporting which can often give different impressions even on the same event from 2 different reporters. I think both parties genuinely believe that they have been wronged ( in terms of the allegations for the accused) and I have full sympathy for the woman because she is ultimately the one that has suffered the most. I do not envy the jurors in this case.

If she is infact the victim then of course she has suffered the most but that remains to be seen.

I think it's fair to say she's suffered whatever way things might pan out from here on in!

Careful now, women who are raped must be treated with at best mistrust with no regard for the emotional toll involved in bringing a rape to trial or the peanut gallery will get hot under the collar.

How do you know she was raped?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:57:00 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
I presume that the decision here is a black or white one ie. either guilty or not guilty, because all I can see here is a lot of grey areas and on that basis it is hard to make the case that they are absolutely guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then we are only going on media reporting which can often give different impressions even on the same event from 2 different reporters. I think both parties genuinely believe that they have been wronged ( in terms of the allegations for the accused) and I have full sympathy for the woman because she is ultimately the one that has suffered the most. I do not envy the jurors in this case.

If she is infact the victim then of course she has suffered the most but that remains to be seen.

I think it's fair to say she's suffered whatever way things might pan out from here on in!

But whether she has suffered the most is another thing.

To make that leap you would have to believe that she herself is knowingly making a false allegation. From the evidence I have heard I definitely do not believe that this is the case, I think that she absolutely believes that she was gang raped here. Otherwise why would she put herself through this hell. That is completely distinct from saying that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty.   
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 04:59:44 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:57:00 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
I presume that the decision here is a black or white one ie. either guilty or not guilty, because all I can see here is a lot of grey areas and on that basis it is hard to make the case that they are absolutely guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then we are only going on media reporting which can often give different impressions even on the same event from 2 different reporters. I think both parties genuinely believe that they have been wronged ( in terms of the allegations for the accused) and I have full sympathy for the woman because she is ultimately the one that has suffered the most. I do not envy the jurors in this case.

If she is infact the victim then of course she has suffered the most but that remains to be seen.

I think it's fair to say she's suffered whatever way things might pan out from here on in!

But whether she has suffered the most is another thing.

To make that leap you would have to believe that she herself is knowingly making a false allegation. From the evidence I have heard I definitely do not believe that this is the case, I think that she absolutely believes that she was gang raped here. Otherwise why would she put herself through this hell. That is completely distinct from saying that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

I don't think she made a false allegation.

I don't think she was comfortable with the situation but went along with it out of a supposed fear of these being rugby lads and that they would overpower her if she kicked off and said no. Then afterwards it felt to her like she was raped.

At the same time I also don't think she said no at any stage and the lads were clearly blocked and thought it was consensual at the time.

Nobody is a winner there but I don't think the lads had any reason to think that this wasn't consensual and on that basis they probably get off.

All the bluster and nonsense that happened after only reinforces to me they did not think they had done anything wrong even though in the claimant's eyes they had!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 08, 2018, 05:18:41 PM
Quote from: trailer on March 08, 2018, 04:08:48 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
I presume that the decision here is a black or white one ie. either guilty or not guilty, because all I can see here is a lot of grey areas and on that basis it is hard to make the case that they are absolutely guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then we are only going on media reporting which can often give different impressions even on the same event from 2 different reporters. I think both parties genuinely believe that they have been wronged ( in terms of the allegations for the accused) and I have full sympathy for the woman because she is ultimately the one that has suffered the most. I do not envy the jurors in this case.

If she is infact the victim then of course she has suffered the most but that remains to be seen.

I think it's fair to say she's suffered whatever way things might pan out from here on in!

Careful now, women who are raped must be treated with at best mistrust with no regard for the emotional toll involved in bringing a rape to trial or the peanut gallery will get hot under the collar.

How do you know she was raped?

Don't you know he was in the room on the night in question
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 08, 2018, 05:19:01 PM
Is Harrison going to take the stand? He saw her after TSHTF. Jackson says he didn't. ...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on March 08, 2018, 05:20:42 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 04:59:44 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:57:00 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
I presume that the decision here is a black or white one ie. either guilty or not guilty, because all I can see here is a lot of grey areas and on that basis it is hard to make the case that they are absolutely guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then we are only going on media reporting which can often give different impressions even on the same event from 2 different reporters. I think both parties genuinely believe that they have been wronged ( in terms of the allegations for the accused) and I have full sympathy for the woman because she is ultimately the one that has suffered the most. I do not envy the jurors in this case.

If she is infact the victim then of course she has suffered the most but that remains to be seen.

I think it's fair to say she's suffered whatever way things might pan out from here on in!

But whether she has suffered the most is another thing.

To make that leap you would have to believe that she herself is knowingly making a false allegation. From the evidence I have heard I definitely do not believe that this is the case, I think that she absolutely believes that she was gang raped here. Otherwise why would she put herself through this hell. That is completely distinct from saying that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

I don't think she made a false allegation.

I don't think she was comfortable with the situation but went along with it out of a supposed fear of these being rugby lads and that they would overpower her if she kicked off and said no. Then afterwards it felt to her like she was raped.

At the same time I also don't think she said no at any stage and the lads were clearly blocked and thought it was consensual at the time.

Nobody is a winner there but I don't think the lads had any reason to think that this wasn't consensual and on that basis they probably get off.

All the bluster and nonsense that happened after only reinforces to me they did not think they had done anything wrong even though in the claimant's eyes they had!
So you think the complainant is lying about making it clear that it would go no further than kissing with Jackson, and that she said "please not him too" when Olding came in?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 05:22:12 PM
Yes
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on March 08, 2018, 05:23:39 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 05:22:12 PM
Yes
And the question over whether intercourse took place?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 05:25:57 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 08, 2018, 05:23:39 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 05:22:12 PM
Yes
And the question over whether intercourse took place?

I literally have no idea about that . . . Doctors can't agree on it complainant/witness/Jackson/Olding can't agree on it who knows
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 08, 2018, 05:31:16 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 04:59:44 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:57:00 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
I presume that the decision here is a black or white one ie. either guilty or not guilty, because all I can see here is a lot of grey areas and on that basis it is hard to make the case that they are absolutely guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then we are only going on media reporting which can often give different impressions even on the same event from 2 different reporters. I think both parties genuinely believe that they have been wronged ( in terms of the allegations for the accused) and I have full sympathy for the woman because she is ultimately the one that has suffered the most. I do not envy the jurors in this case.

If she is infact the victim then of course she has suffered the most but that remains to be seen.

I think it's fair to say she's suffered whatever way things might pan out from here on in!

But whether she has suffered the most is another thing.

To make that leap you would have to believe that she herself is knowingly making a false allegation. From the evidence I have heard I definitely do not believe that this is the case, I think that she absolutely believes that she was gang raped here. Otherwise why would she put herself through this hell. That is completely distinct from saying that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

I don't think she made a false allegation.

I don't think she was comfortable with the situation but went along with it out of a supposed fear of these being rugby lads and that they would overpower her if she kicked off and said no. Then afterwards it felt to her like she was raped.

At the same time I also don't think she said no at any stage and the lads were clearly blocked and thought it was consensual at the time.

Nobody is a winner there but I don't think the lads had any reason to think that this wasn't consensual and on that basis they probably get off.

All the bluster and nonsense that happened after only reinforces to me they did not think they had done anything wrong even though in the claimant's eyes they had!
The lads were totally drunk. How would a no have registered ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 08, 2018, 06:14:29 PM
Dara Florence saw Jacko thrusting into the claimant. Jacko says it was merely oral then fingers. Olding says he walked in and the claimant switches to him. As you do.

They have to be telling porkies.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 08, 2018, 06:26:34 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 04:03:35 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 08, 2018, 03:52:28 PM
Reasonable doubt, I can't get past. Then I ask myself why would she put herself through that, I just can't decide.

Yeah, she gives evidence for 6 or 7 days and has her knickers and bra paraded around the court whereas Olding is asked what he got in his A Levels and how many times he played for Ireland! 

But of course they couldn't find Olding's clothes to parade around the court ;)

Seriously though, I've a grown up daughter (in her 20s) I'm not sure I'd want her to go through what the complainant has gone through no matter what happened to her :-\

Yeah that is bang on. The ordeal that women go through in a rape case is horrendous. How legal minds can not think that there is not something seriously flawed is beyond me. The parading knickers things sounds like something from centuries ago. To think that still goes on is absolutely ludicrous - and vile.

It is very hard to comprehend why someone would go through it unless they really really must.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 08, 2018, 06:41:10 PM
Was her underwear paraded around the court?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 08, 2018, 07:02:35 PM
Yes. Apparently common place in rape cases.

Anyone able to confirm or deny this? (Not a legal eagle but it is what I have been led to believe)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Esmarelda on March 08, 2018, 07:12:24 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 08, 2018, 05:31:16 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 04:59:44 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:57:00 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
I presume that the decision here is a black or white one ie. either guilty or not guilty, because all I can see here is a lot of grey areas and on that basis it is hard to make the case that they are absolutely guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then we are only going on media reporting which can often give different impressions even on the same event from 2 different reporters. I think both parties genuinely believe that they have been wronged ( in terms of the allegations for the accused) and I have full sympathy for the woman because she is ultimately the one that has suffered the most. I do not envy the jurors in this case.

If she is infact the victim then of course she has suffered the most but that remains to be seen.

I think it's fair to say she's suffered whatever way things might pan out from here on in!

But whether she has suffered the most is another thing.

To make that leap you would have to believe that she herself is knowingly making a false allegation. From the evidence I have heard I definitely do not believe that this is the case, I think that she absolutely believes that she was gang raped here. Otherwise why would she put herself through this hell. That is completely distinct from saying that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

I don't think she made a false allegation.

I don't think she was comfortable with the situation but went along with it out of a supposed fear of these being rugby lads and that they would overpower her if she kicked off and said no. Then afterwards it felt to her like she was raped.

At the same time I also don't think she said no at any stage and the lads were clearly blocked and thought it was consensual at the time.

Nobody is a winner there but I don't think the lads had any reason to think that this wasn't consensual and on that basis they probably get off.

All the bluster and nonsense that happened after only reinforces to me they did not think they had done anything wrong even though in the claimant's eyes they had!
The lads were totally drunk. How would a no have registered ?
Seriously? When you're drunk, does "No" compute as something else?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 07:14:20 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 08, 2018, 07:12:24 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 08, 2018, 05:31:16 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 04:59:44 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:57:00 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
I presume that the decision here is a black or white one ie. either guilty or not guilty, because all I can see here is a lot of grey areas and on that basis it is hard to make the case that they are absolutely guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then we are only going on media reporting which can often give different impressions even on the same event from 2 different reporters. I think both parties genuinely believe that they have been wronged ( in terms of the allegations for the accused) and I have full sympathy for the woman because she is ultimately the one that has suffered the most. I do not envy the jurors in this case.

If she is infact the victim then of course she has suffered the most but that remains to be seen.

I think it's fair to say she's suffered whatever way things might pan out from here on in!

But whether she has suffered the most is another thing.

To make that leap you would have to believe that she herself is knowingly making a false allegation. From the evidence I have heard I definitely do not believe that this is the case, I think that she absolutely believes that she was gang raped here. Otherwise why would she put herself through this hell. That is completely distinct from saying that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

I don't think she made a false allegation.

I don't think she was comfortable with the situation but went along with it out of a supposed fear of these being rugby lads and that they would overpower her if she kicked off and said no. Then afterwards it felt to her like she was raped.

At the same time I also don't think she said no at any stage and the lads were clearly blocked and thought it was consensual at the time.

Nobody is a winner there but I don't think the lads had any reason to think that this wasn't consensual and on that basis they probably get off.

All the bluster and nonsense that happened after only reinforces to me they did not think they had done anything wrong even though in the claimant's eyes they had!
The lads were totally drunk. How would a no have registered ?
Seriously? When you're drunk, does "No" compute as something else?
Have you not been off your tits on drink before or something?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 08, 2018, 07:42:32 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:27:00 PM
What is Olding charged with?

Seriously?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 08:38:37 PM
I was just reading up a bit there now about the Mike Tyson rape trial in 1992.

I think there are some key similarities between this case and the Tyson one. The celebrity status of the defendant/s most obviously, but the victim also had vaginal abrasions, and a witness who drove the victim in a car shortly after the crime testified that she was in a distressed state. These were key to getting a conviction. I'm not 100% sure of the source on this one but it has also been written that there was no trace of semen found.

But unlike in this case, there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime other than Tyson, who denied it, and Desiree Washington, the victim.

Yet still it resulted in a conviction.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 08, 2018, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 08:38:37 PM
I was just reading up a bit there now about the Mike Tyson rape trial in 1992.

I think there are some key similarities between this case and the Tyson one. The celebrity status of the defendant/s most obviously, but the victim also had vaginal abrasions, and a witness who drove the victim in a car shortly after the crime testified that she was in a distressed state. These were key to getting a conviction. I'm not 100% sure of the source on this one but it has also been written that there was no trace of semen found.

But unlike in this case, there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime other than Tyson, who denied it, and Desiree Washington, the victim.

Yet still it resulted in a conviction.

One major difference though between Tyson and these defendants.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 08, 2018, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 08:38:37 PM
I was just reading up a bit there now about the Mike Tyson rape trial in 1992.

I think there are some key similarities between this case and the Tyson one. The celebrity status of the defendant/s most obviously, but the victim also had vaginal abrasions, and a witness who drove the victim in a car shortly after the crime testified that she was in a distressed state. These were key to getting a conviction. I'm not 100% sure of the source on this one but it has also been written that there was no trace of semen found.

But unlike in this case, there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime other than Tyson, who denied it, and Desiree Washington, the victim.

Yet still it resulted in a conviction.

One major difference though between Tyson and these defendants.

The victim was also black.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Maiden1 on March 08, 2018, 09:10:47 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 08:38:37 PM
I was just reading up a bit there now about the Mike Tyson rape trial in 1992.

I think there are some key similarities between this case and the Tyson one. The celebrity status of the defendant/s most obviously, but the victim also had vaginal abrasions, and a witness who drove the victim in a car shortly after the crime testified that she was in a distressed state. These were key to getting a conviction. I'm not 100% sure of the source on this one but it has also been written that there was no trace of semen found.

But unlike in this case, there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime other than Tyson, who denied it, and Desiree Washington, the victim.

Yet still it resulted in a conviction.

There are quite a few other cases for and against

E.g.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: straightred on March 08, 2018, 09:22:54 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 08, 2018, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 08:38:37 PM
I was just reading up a bit there now about the Mike Tyson rape trial in 1992.

I think there are some key similarities between this case and the Tyson one. The celebrity status of the defendant/s most obviously, but the victim also had vaginal abrasions, and a witness who drove the victim in a car shortly after the crime testified that she was in a distressed state. These were key to getting a conviction. I'm not 100% sure of the source on this one but it has also been written that there was no trace of semen found.

But unlike in this case, there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime other than Tyson, who denied it, and Desiree Washington, the victim.

Yet still it resulted in a conviction.

One major difference though between Tyson and these defendants.

I'd say there's 2. Don't forget boxer vs rugby player
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2018, 09:33:39 PM
Quote from: straightred on March 08, 2018, 09:22:54 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 08, 2018, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 08:38:37 PM
I was just reading up a bit there now about the Mike Tyson rape trial in 1992.

I think there are some key similarities between this case and the Tyson one. The celebrity status of the defendant/s most obviously, but the victim also had vaginal abrasions, and a witness who drove the victim in a car shortly after the crime testified that she was in a distressed state. These were key to getting a conviction. I'm not 100% sure of the source on this one but it has also been written that there was no trace of semen found.

But unlike in this case, there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime other than Tyson, who denied it, and Desiree Washington, the victim.

Yet still it resulted in a conviction.

One major difference though between Tyson and these defendants.

I'd say there's 2. Don't forget boxer vs rugby player

Tyson had previous! What traits have these lads shown in the past ? Have they been convicted of anything before? Is this normal for them?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 08, 2018, 09:38:06 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2018, 09:33:39 PM
Quote from: straightred on March 08, 2018, 09:22:54 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 08, 2018, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 08:38:37 PM
I was just reading up a bit there now about the Mike Tyson rape trial in 1992.

I think there are some key similarities between this case and the Tyson one. The celebrity status of the defendant/s most obviously, but the victim also had vaginal abrasions, and a witness who drove the victim in a car shortly after the crime testified that she was in a distressed state. These were key to getting a conviction. I'm not 100% sure of the source on this one but it has also been written that there was no trace of semen found.

But unlike in this case, there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime other than Tyson, who denied it, and Desiree Washington, the victim.

Yet still it resulted in a conviction.

One major difference though between Tyson and these defendants.

I'd say there's 2. Don't forget boxer vs rugby player

Tyson had previous! What traits have these lads shown in the past ? Have they been convicted of anything before? Is this normal for them?
Belfast's top shaggers. More flutes than the 12th of Julÿ
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: thebuzz on March 08, 2018, 09:38:27 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 08, 2018, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 08:38:37 PM
I was just reading up a bit there now about the Mike Tyson rape trial in 1992.

I think there are some key similarities between this case and the Tyson one. The celebrity status of the defendant/s most obviously, but the victim also had vaginal abrasions, and a witness who drove the victim in a car shortly after the crime testified that she was in a distressed state. These were key to getting a conviction. I'm not 100% sure of the source on this one but it has also been written that there was no trace of semen found.

But unlike in this case, there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime other than Tyson, who denied it, and Desiree Washington, the victim.

Yet still it resulted in a conviction.

A friend mentioned this to me last night but I had never heard of it before then. If this were true surely it would be in their favour?

But then when was she examined? The longer after the night's events then the less likely there would be any trace I'd presume.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Maiden1 on March 08, 2018, 09:44:54 PM
Quote from: thebuzz on March 08, 2018, 09:38:27 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 08, 2018, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 08:38:37 PM
I was just reading up a bit there now about the Mike Tyson rape trial in 1992.

I think there are some key similarities between this case and the Tyson one. The celebrity status of the defendant/s most obviously, but the victim also had vaginal abrasions, and a witness who drove the victim in a car shortly after the crime testified that she was in a distressed state. These were key to getting a conviction. I'm not 100% sure of the source on this one but it has also been written that there was no trace of semen found.

But unlike in this case, there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime other than Tyson, who denied it, and Desiree Washington, the victim.

Yet still it resulted in a conviction.

A friend mentioned this to me last night but I had never heard of it before then. If this were true surely it would be in their favour?

But then when was she examined? The longer after the night's events then the less likely there would be any trace I'd presume.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-olding-s-semen-found-on-alleged-victim-s-clothes-1.3400684?mode=amp
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2018, 10:01:47 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 08, 2018, 09:38:06 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2018, 09:33:39 PM
Quote from: straightred on March 08, 2018, 09:22:54 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 08, 2018, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 08:38:37 PM
I was just reading up a bit there now about the Mike Tyson rape trial in 1992.

I think there are some key similarities between this case and the Tyson one. The celebrity status of the defendant/s most obviously, but the victim also had vaginal abrasions, and a witness who drove the victim in a car shortly after the crime testified that she was in a distressed state. These were key to getting a conviction. I'm not 100% sure of the source on this one but it has also been written that there was no trace of semen found.

But unlike in this case, there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime other than Tyson, who denied it, and Desiree Washington, the victim.

Yet still it resulted in a conviction.

One major difference though between Tyson and these defendants.

I'd say there's 2. Don't forget boxer vs rugby player

Tyson had previous! What traits have these lads shown in the past ? Have they been convicted of anything before? Is this normal for them?
Belfast's top shaggers. More flutes than the 12th of Julÿ

That's it! Throw away the key??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 08, 2018, 10:15:56 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 08, 2018, 06:41:10 PM
Was her underwear paraded around the court?
The jury was shown her top, jeans and underwear.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 10:42:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2018, 09:33:39 PM
Quote from: straightred on March 08, 2018, 09:22:54 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 08, 2018, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 08:38:37 PM
I was just reading up a bit there now about the Mike Tyson rape trial in 1992.

I think there are some key similarities between this case and the Tyson one. The celebrity status of the defendant/s most obviously, but the victim also had vaginal abrasions, and a witness who drove the victim in a car shortly after the crime testified that she was in a distressed state. These were key to getting a conviction. I'm not 100% sure of the source on this one but it has also been written that there was no trace of semen found.

But unlike in this case, there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime other than Tyson, who denied it, and Desiree Washington, the victim.

Yet still it resulted in a conviction.

One major difference though between Tyson and these defendants.

I'd say there's 2. Don't forget boxer vs rugby player

Tyson had previous! What traits have these lads shown in the past ? Have they been convicted of anything before? Is this normal for them?
What previous? Previous for rape? Em, I don't think so, mate.

"Previous" or no "previous" of any sort is irrelevant in determining whether somebody is guilty of a crime.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on March 08, 2018, 10:56:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 10:42:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2018, 09:33:39 PM
Quote from: straightred on March 08, 2018, 09:22:54 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 08, 2018, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 08:38:37 PM
I was just reading up a bit there now about the Mike Tyson rape trial in 1992.

I think there are some key similarities between this case and the Tyson one. The celebrity status of the defendant/s most obviously, but the victim also had vaginal abrasions, and a witness who drove the victim in a car shortly after the crime testified that she was in a distressed state. These were key to getting a conviction. I'm not 100% sure of the source on this one but it has also been written that there was no trace of semen found.

But unlike in this case, there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime other than Tyson, who denied it, and Desiree Washington, the victim.

Yet still it resulted in a conviction.

One major difference though between Tyson and these defendants.

I'd say there's 2. Don't forget boxer vs rugby player

Tyson had previous! What traits have these lads shown in the past ? Have they been convicted of anything before? Is this normal for them?
What previous? Previous for rape? Em, I don't think so, mate.

"Previous" or no "previous" of any sort is irrelevant in determining whether somebody is guilty of a crime.

It can if judge allows previous to be introduced thereby shows a prediliction to such behaviour/offending.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2018, 11:06:36 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 10:42:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2018, 09:33:39 PM
Quote from: straightred on March 08, 2018, 09:22:54 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 08, 2018, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 08:38:37 PM
I was just reading up a bit there now about the Mike Tyson rape trial in 1992.

I think there are some key similarities between this case and the Tyson one. The celebrity status of the defendant/s most obviously, but the victim also had vaginal abrasions, and a witness who drove the victim in a car shortly after the crime testified that she was in a distressed state. These were key to getting a conviction. I'm not 100% sure of the source on this one but it has also been written that there was no trace of semen found.

But unlike in this case, there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime other than Tyson, who denied it, and Desiree Washington, the victim.

Yet still it resulted in a conviction.

One major difference though between Tyson and these defendants.

I'd say there's 2. Don't forget boxer vs rugby player

Tyson had previous! What traits have these lads shown in the past ? Have they been convicted of anything before? Is this normal for them?
What previous? Previous for rape? Em, I don't think so, mate.

"Previous" or no "previous" of any sort is irrelevant in determining whether somebody is guilty of a crime.

I'm not your mate

He was done for mugging robbing and pickpocketing before rape case, now I can't say those things determine whether you'll turn into a rapist but I think when you use violence to mug someone it doesn't make you a nice person. But you're thinking different
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 11:25:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2018, 11:06:36 PM
I'm not your mate
I'll decide what I call you, mate.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 11:44:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 08, 2018, 07:42:32 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:27:00 PM
What is Olding charged with?
Do you not know?
Seriously?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2018, 11:47:31 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 11:25:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2018, 11:06:36 PM
I'm not your mate
I'll decide what I call you, mate.

Ok, weirdo
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 09, 2018, 06:58:02 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2018, 11:47:31 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 08, 2018, 11:25:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2018, 11:06:36 PM
I'm not your mate
I'll decide what I call you, mate.

Ok, weirdo

You got that right anyway
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 09, 2018, 07:55:00 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 08, 2018, 05:20:42 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 04:59:44 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:57:00 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
I presume that the decision here is a black or white one ie. either guilty or not guilty, because all I can see here is a lot of grey areas and on that basis it is hard to make the case that they are absolutely guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then we are only going on media reporting which can often give different impressions even on the same event from 2 different reporters. I think both parties genuinely believe that they have been wronged ( in terms of the allegations for the accused) and I have full sympathy for the woman because she is ultimately the one that has suffered the most. I do not envy the jurors in this case.

If she is infact the victim then of course she has suffered the most but that remains to be seen.

I think it's fair to say she's suffered whatever way things might pan out from here on in!

But whether she has suffered the most is another thing.

To make that leap you would have to believe that she herself is knowingly making a false allegation. From the evidence I have heard I definitely do not believe that this is the case, I think that she absolutely believes that she was gang raped here. Otherwise why would she put herself through this hell. That is completely distinct from saying that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

I don't think she made a false allegation.

I don't think she was comfortable with the situation but went along with it out of a supposed fear of these being rugby lads and that they would overpower her if she kicked off and said no. Then afterwards it felt to her like she was raped.

At the same time I also don't think she said no at any stage and the lads were clearly blocked and thought it was consensual at the time.

Nobody is a winner there but I don't think the lads had any reason to think that this wasn't consensual and on that basis they probably get off.

All the bluster and nonsense that happened after only reinforces to me they did not think they had done anything wrong even though in the claimant's eyes they had!
So you think the complainant is lying about making it clear that it would go no further than kissing with Jackson, and that she said "please not him too" when Olding came in?

She allegedly said that when McIlroy came in not olding.  No wonder the judge mentioned about fireside lawyers
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 08:08:44 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 09, 2018, 07:55:00 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on March 08, 2018, 05:20:42 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 04:59:44 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:57:00 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 08, 2018, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 08, 2018, 03:33:21 PM
I presume that the decision here is a black or white one ie. either guilty or not guilty, because all I can see here is a lot of grey areas and on that basis it is hard to make the case that they are absolutely guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then we are only going on media reporting which can often give different impressions even on the same event from 2 different reporters. I think both parties genuinely believe that they have been wronged ( in terms of the allegations for the accused) and I have full sympathy for the woman because she is ultimately the one that has suffered the most. I do not envy the jurors in this case.

If she is infact the victim then of course she has suffered the most but that remains to be seen.

I think it's fair to say she's suffered whatever way things might pan out from here on in!

But whether she has suffered the most is another thing.

To make that leap you would have to believe that she herself is knowingly making a false allegation. From the evidence I have heard I definitely do not believe that this is the case, I think that she absolutely believes that she was gang raped here. Otherwise why would she put herself through this hell. That is completely distinct from saying that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

I don't think she made a false allegation.

I don't think she was comfortable with the situation but went along with it out of a supposed fear of these being rugby lads and that they would overpower her if she kicked off and said no. Then afterwards it felt to her like she was raped.

At the same time I also don't think she said no at any stage and the lads were clearly blocked and thought it was consensual at the time.

Nobody is a winner there but I don't think the lads had any reason to think that this wasn't consensual and on that basis they probably get off.

All the bluster and nonsense that happened after only reinforces to me they did not think they had done anything wrong even though in the claimant's eyes they had!
So you think the complainant is lying about making it clear that it would go no further than kissing with Jackson, and that she said "please not him too" when Olding came in?

She allegedly said that when McIlroy came in not olding.  No wonder the judge mentioned about fireside lawyers

Think u have got this wrong Frank, she said this when Olding came in.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 08:09:31 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 11:44:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 08, 2018, 07:42:32 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:27:00 PM
What is Olding charged with?
Do you not know?
Seriously?!

I'm surprised that, given your "contributions" to the 130 odd pages of this thread, you don't have a clue what charge the defendants are facing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 09, 2018, 08:17:52 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 08:09:31 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 11:44:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 08, 2018, 07:42:32 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:27:00 PM
What is Olding charged with?
Do you not know?
Seriously?!

I'm surprised that, given your "contributions" to the 130 odd pages of this thread, you don't have a clue what charge the defendants are facing.

Nuts.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 09, 2018, 08:49:17 AM
According to RTE News McIlroy wil give evidence today.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 09, 2018, 08:51:07 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 08:09:31 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 11:44:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 08, 2018, 07:42:32 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:27:00 PM
What is Olding charged with?
Do you not know?
Seriously?!

I'm surprised that, given your "contributions" to the 130 odd pages of this thread, you don't have a clue what charge the defendants are facing.

There are/were several charges against some of the different defendants, I was simply asking what were the specific charge(s) against Olding?  Sorry if I am not permitted to ask such a question.  You really are a tool.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 09, 2018, 08:52:36 AM
Not related to the case!!!

I'm sure there are lots of people on here that have been out on a night out and all their versions of the night have been different, I know I've certainly been out and its been a mad one and various parties and then wondered WTF, checked in with a few friends (before mobiles lol) and ones have said this and others have said that and some have just not remembered ..

This does not excuse being a rapist or a top shagger oif course

If going by the general posts on here and the views I'd say they will get off because there is not enough hard evidence to convict

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 09, 2018, 09:04:38 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 09, 2018, 08:51:07 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 08:09:31 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 11:44:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 08, 2018, 07:42:32 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:27:00 PM
What is Olding charged with?
Do you not know?
Seriously?!

I'm surprised that, given your "contributions" to the 130 odd pages of this thread, you don't have a clue what charge the defendants are facing.

There are/were several charges against some of the different defendants, I was simply asking what were the specific charge(s) against Olding?  Sorry if I am not permitted to ask such a question.  You really are a tool.

I just checked and Google is working.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 09, 2018, 08:52:36 AM
Not related to the case!!!

I'm sure there are lots of people on here that have been out on a night out and all their versions of the night have been different, I know I've certainly been out and its been a mad one and various parties and then wondered WTF, checked in with a few friends (before mobiles lol) and ones have said this and others have said that and some have just not remembered ..

This does not excuse being a rapist or a top shagger oif course

If going by the general posts on here and the views I'd say they will get off because there is not enough hard evidence to convict
+1
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 09, 2018, 09:26:43 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 09, 2018, 08:52:36 AM
Not related to the case!!!

I'm sure there are lots of people on here that have been out on a night out and all their versions of the night have been different, I know I've certainly been out and its been a mad one and various parties and then wondered WTF, checked in with a few friends (before mobiles lol) and ones have said this and others have said that and some have just not remembered ..

This does not excuse being a rapist or a top shagger oif course

If going by the general posts on here and the views I'd say they will get off because there is not enough hard evidence to convict
Doesn't have to be hard to be guilty
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 09, 2018, 09:28:33 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 09, 2018, 09:26:43 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 09, 2018, 08:52:36 AM
Not related to the case!!!

I'm sure there are lots of people on here that have been out on a night out and all their versions of the night have been different, I know I've certainly been out and its been a mad one and various parties and then wondered WTF, checked in with a few friends (before mobiles lol) and ones have said this and others have said that and some have just not remembered ..

This does not excuse being a rapist or a top shagger oif course

If going by the general posts on here and the views I'd say they will get off because there is not enough hard evidence to convict
Doesn't have to be hard to be guilty

How is there ever convictions in rape cases?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 09, 2018, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 09, 2018, 08:52:36 AM
Not related to the case!!!

I'm sure there are lots of people on here that have been out on a night out and all their versions of the night have been different, I know I've certainly been out and its been a mad one and various parties and then wondered WTF, checked in with a few friends (before mobiles lol) and ones have said this and others have said that and some have just not remembered ..

This does not excuse being a rapist or a top shagger oif course

If going by the general posts on here and the views I'd say they will get off because there is not enough hard evidence to convict
+1
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

You would hope the jury wasn't following social media after her appearance.

Also she appeared for the prosecution so if her evidence is credible then it's more likely to lead to conviction??  Did she not say that she saw Jackson having sex with the complainant, something he says didn't happen.  So if she's accurate...he's not?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 09:31:17 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 09, 2018, 08:51:07 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 08:09:31 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 11:44:28 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 08, 2018, 07:42:32 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2018, 03:27:00 PM
What is Olding charged with?
Do you not know?
Seriously?!

I'm surprised that, given your "contributions" to the 130 odd pages of this thread, you don't have a clue what charge the defendants are facing.

There are/were several charges against some of the different defendants, I was simply asking what were the specific charge(s) against Olding?  Sorry if I am not permitted to ask such a question.  You really are a tool.

Almost any report on the case, on which you're so opinionated, specifies each of the charges against each of the defendants.

You're a spoofer of the highest order. Twat.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 09, 2018, 09:33:30 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 09, 2018, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 09, 2018, 08:52:36 AM
Not related to the case!!!

I'm sure there are lots of people on here that have been out on a night out and all their versions of the night have been different, I know I've certainly been out and its been a mad one and various parties and then wondered WTF, checked in with a few friends (before mobiles lol) and ones have said this and others have said that and some have just not remembered ..

This does not excuse being a rapist or a top shagger oif course

If going by the general posts on here and the views I'd say they will get off because there is not enough hard evidence to convict
+1
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

You would hope the jury wasn't following social media after her appearance.

Also she appeared for the prosecution so if her evidence is credible then it's more likely to lead to conviction??  Did she not say that she saw Jackson having sex with the complainant, something he says didn't happen.  So if she's accurate...he's not?
But she also said that, while she didnt actually see the act of consent, it looked to her like it was consensual and gave her no cause for concern. But if you believe the complainant was terrorised with fear and afraid/unable to call for help, then that could still be non-consent
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 09:34:14 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 09, 2018, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 09:34:14 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.
It is looking like he said /she said in which case it may come down to who is deemed to be telling the truth.
Jackson's schtick is that he is a nice young man and would never do that. Olding's is that despite 23 drinks he knew where he was.
Dara Florence is important because she was there and contradicts Jackson 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 09, 2018, 09:52:02 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 09, 2018, 09:33:30 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 09, 2018, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 09, 2018, 08:52:36 AM
Not related to the case!!!

I'm sure there are lots of people on here that have been out on a night out and all their versions of the night have been different, I know I've certainly been out and its been a mad one and various parties and then wondered WTF, checked in with a few friends (before mobiles lol) and ones have said this and others have said that and some have just not remembered ..

This does not excuse being a rapist or a top shagger oif course

If going by the general posts on here and the views I'd say they will get off because there is not enough hard evidence to convict
+1
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

You would hope the jury wasn't following social media after her appearance.

Also she appeared for the prosecution so if her evidence is credible then it's more likely to lead to conviction??  Did she not say that she saw Jackson having sex with the complainant, something he says didn't happen.  So if she's accurate...he's not?
But she also said that, while she didnt actually see the act of consent, it looked to her like it was consensual and gave her no cause for concern. But if you believe the complainant was terrorised with fear and afraid/unable to call for help, then that could still be non-consent

Yep, I think that's the road the prosecution will be going down when they sum up.  The defence doctor (expert in sexual assault) did say that the "overwhelming evidence" was that women didn't resist.  So they're likely to say that what Ms Florence saw was a woman not resisting non-consensual sex just like the vast majority of women who are assaulted.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 09, 2018, 09:53:23 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 09, 2018, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 09:34:14 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.
It is looking like he said /she said in which case it may come down to who is deemed to be telling the truth.
Jackson's schtick is that he is a nice young man and would never do that. Olding's is that despite 23 drinks he knew where he was.
Dara Florence is important because she was there and contradicts Jackson

So does Olding in parts of his evidence
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 09:54:27 AM
And McIlroy...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 09, 2018, 10:08:13 AM
I think putting them on the stand is an indication that the defence are worried. And it certainly on the face of it doesn't appear to be working. Maybe the Ireland Rugby Captain on Monday after winning the 6 nations championship might help sway things.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 10:11:13 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 09:34:14 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.
I'd say it's more likely than not that Jackson had sex with her which would mean he lied about that, but I also feel the girl probably went along with things given Florence's evidence that she was giving apparently consensual oral to Olding and the fact that she took her own top off. Those are just my opinions and although it sounds like the 4 lads are telling a few lies and have a dodgy recollection(as MR2 said it would be surprising if there weren't lots of contradictions in the various accounts given the amount of drink involved), I still feel there's too much doubt about the girl's story for a jury to convict due to:
- Florence thinking it looked consensual.
- the girl not mentioning Florence's appearance in her police interview. Even allowing for trauma this is a strange omission. I imagine a police interview for an incident like this is a very thorough process.
- inconsistencies between what she told the doctors and the cops.
- her admission that her recollection of events was hazy.
- taking her own top off. She said she was ordered to but can't recall who ordered her to do it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 10:19:55 AM
Or to put it another way, the girl might be more believable than the lads at this stage, but she's not believable enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 09, 2018, 10:21:38 AM
For Jackson there is no DNA of him having sex with here , no semen doesnt mean he didnt but most people have some sort of fluid coming out their dick when dry humping..

The witness sees him thrusting but I doubt very much see seen him with his dick inside her, as she would have had to bend down to see..

Taking the stand was a risk, it might not pay off and now really its down to the jury to.. if a poll went up here I'm guessing they would be getting off
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 09, 2018, 10:23:33 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 10:11:13 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 09:34:14 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.
I'd say it's more likely than not that Jackson had sex with her which would mean he lied about that, but I also feel the girl probably went along with things given Florence's evidence that she was giving apparently consensual oral to Olding and the fact that she took her own top off. Those are just my opinions and although it sounds like the 4 lads are telling a few lies and have a dodgy recollection(as MR2 said it would be surprising if there weren't lots of contradictions in the various accounts given the amount of drink involved), I still feel there's too much doubt about the girl's story for a jury to convict due to:
- Florence thinking it looked consensual.
- the girl not mentioning Florence's appearance in her police interview. Even allowing for trauma this is a strange omission. I imagine a police interview for an incident like this is a very thorough process.
- inconsistencies between what she told the doctors and the cops.
- her admission that her recollection of events was hazy.
- taking her own top off. She said she was ordered to but can't recall who ordered her to do it.

Re hazy recollections, everyone was drunk.

The police interview is claimant led according to someone in the PSNI. It is not structured to cover everything given the trauma associated with rape.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/feb/03/uma-thurman-harvey-weinstein-new-york-times-quentin-tarantino

The attempted assault in London, she told the Times, came after a meeting with Weinstein in a hotel room in Paris, during which he wore a bathrobe.

"I didn't feel threatened," she said. "I thought he was being super idiosyncratic, like this was your kooky, eccentric uncle."

Thurman said the producer instructed her to follow him down a hallway.

"I followed him through a door and it was a steam room," she said. "And I was standing there in my full black leather outfit – boots, pants, jacket. And it was so hot and I said, 'This is ridiculous, what are you doing?' And he was getting very flustered and mad and he jumped up and ran out."


The actor returned to the Savoy to confront Weinstein, she said, taking her friend with her. She asked Weinstein to meet her in the bar. However, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes, his assistants convinced her to return upstairs alone.

Thurman said she warned Weinstein: "If you do what you did to me to other people you will lose your career, your reputation and your family, I promise you."

A spokesman for the director told the Times Thurman "very well could have said this".

According to the Times, Thurman's "memory of the incident abruptly stops there".

Thurman's friend, Ilona Herman, told the Times that when Thurman returned from meeting Weinstein, "she was very disheveled and so upset and had this blank look. Her eyes were crazy and she was totally out of control. I shoveled her into the taxi and we went home to my house. She was really shaking."

Herman told the Times that when Thurman was able to talk again, she said Weinstein had threatened to derail her career. Weinstein apparently brushed off the incident, though, and his assistants started calling again to talk about projects.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 09, 2018, 10:28:15 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 10:19:55 AM
Or to put it another way, the girl might be more believable than the lads at this stage, but she's not believable enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution will probably focus on the features of rape in the final speeches. The lads are saying everything was grand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 10:52:12 AM
Fair points seafoid but it seems unfair to put inconsistencies and strange behaviour/explanations on one side down to trauma and on the other side down to lies which I think is what the jury will have to do in order to convict.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 09, 2018, 10:57:08 AM
QuoteThe police interview is claimant led according to someone in the PSNI. It is not structured to cover everything given the trauma associated with rape.

It's little details like this that are being ignored or people are unaware of that are crucial I think.

Another thing that strikes me as weird was "asking" her to take her top off. Doesn't ring true at all. I'm sure I'm wrong....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 09, 2018, 11:02:01 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 10:52:12 AM
Fair points seafoid but it seems unfair to put inconsistencies and strange behaviour/explanations on one side down to trauma and on the other side down to lies which I think is what the jury will have to do in order to convict.
Asal, I would say the prosecution will focus on credibility and drink taken.
23 drinks is shocking.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 11:14:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 09, 2018, 11:02:01 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 10:52:12 AM
Fair points seafoid but it seems unfair to put inconsistencies and strange behaviour/explanations on one side down to trauma and on the other side down to lies which I think is what the jury will have to do in order to convict.
Asal, I would say the prosecution will focus on credibility and drink taken.
23 drinks is shocking.
I can't argue with that either seafoid.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 09, 2018, 11:51:37 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 09, 2018, 11:02:01 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 10:52:12 AM
Fair points seafoid but it seems unfair to put inconsistencies and strange behaviour/explanations on one side down to trauma and on the other side down to lies which I think is what the jury will have to do in order to convict.
Asal, I would say the prosecution will focus on credibility and drink taken.
23 drinks is shocking.

I think it'll all come down to this. It's a he said/she said and who comes across better on the stand
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: passedit on March 09, 2018, 12:19:43 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 09:34:14 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.

This is it for me.

The claimant maitains that Jackson had rough non consensual vaginal sex with her.
Her story is corroberated (with the obvious exception of consent but this is not contradicted either) by the medical evidence, Dara Florence and the men's own text exchanges.
Jackson's defence is that he didn't have vaginal sex with her and in any case there was no roughness. His evidence has been contradicted by Dara Florence and his own text exchanges and not helped by the other defendants.

If he'd claimed consensual vaginal sex then maybe there'd be some doubt but he doesnt, he's done.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 09, 2018, 12:20:12 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 09, 2018, 10:57:08 AM
QuoteThe police interview is claimant led according to someone in the PSNI. It is not structured to cover everything given the trauma associated with rape.

It's little details like this that are being ignored or people are unaware of that are crucial I think.

Another thing that strikes me as weird was "asking" her to take her top off. Doesn't ring true at all. I'm sure I'm wrong....

I'm sure the words were something like "Take your top off"

Which would not be an uncommon thing to say to someone in a consensual arrangement. And it's 99% of the time a request not an order.

But without tone or body language we can't know for sure whether this was said as a question or an intimidating threat or something in between. Or why she complied, rather than saying f.uck off and walking out. 
I keep coming back to the point that there was no threat of physical violence so why just comply. And I know the doctor said that victims often comply, but there was no follow up to dig into the detail, because I can certainly imagine that scenario where there is a threat of violence. But not in a situation where there are 3 other girls in the house and they'd be almost certain to react to a cry for help. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 09, 2018, 12:25:37 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 09, 2018, 12:19:43 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 09:34:14 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.

This is it for me.

The claimant maitains that Jackson had rough non consensual vaginal sex with her.
Her story is corroberated (with the obvious exception of consent but this is not contradicted either) by the medical evidence, Dara Florence and the men's own text exchanges.
Jackson's defence is that he didn't have vaginal sex with her and in any case there was no roughness. His evidence has been contradicted by Dara Florence and his own text exchanges and not helped by the other defendants.

If he'd claimed consensual vaginal sex then maybe there'd be some doubt but he doesnt, he's done.
The "rough" wasn't corroborated. A small cut most likely caused by a fingernail. Only bruise of any significance was on the elbow and she didnt know how that arose.

The 2nd doctor disagreed with 1st doctor and said the amount of blood couldnt have come from such a cut and is likely menstrual and said 1st doctor's examination was lacking. So still doubt on that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 09, 2018, 12:31:34 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 09, 2018, 12:25:37 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 09, 2018, 12:19:43 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 09:34:14 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.

This is it for me.

The claimant maitains that Jackson had rough non consensual vaginal sex with her.
Her story is corroberated (with the obvious exception of consent but this is not contradicted either) by the medical evidence, Dara Florence and the men's own text exchanges.
Jackson's defence is that he didn't have vaginal sex with her and in any case there was no roughness. His evidence has been contradicted by Dara Florence and his own text exchanges and not helped by the other defendants.

If he'd claimed consensual vaginal sex then maybe there'd be some doubt but he doesnt, he's done.
The "rough" wasn't corroborated. A small cut most likely caused by a fingernail. Only bruise of any significance was on the elbow and she didnt know how that arose.

The 2nd doctor disagreed with 1st doctor and said the amount of blood couldnt have come from such a cut and is likely menstrual and said 1st doctor's examination was lacking. So still doubt on that.

Was there evidence to that effect?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 09, 2018, 12:46:45 PM
It's a rape trial. The prosecuting QC has presumably seen a few which should move things beyond he said/she said. I just don't think Jackson''s story about Olding walking in and taking over from him just like that is credible either.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 09, 2018, 12:56:31 PM
I heard this house described as a "gang banging house" by someone that knows of it so I doubt the "sharing" and taking turns is anything new for these fellas
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 09, 2018, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 09, 2018, 12:31:34 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 09, 2018, 12:25:37 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 09, 2018, 12:19:43 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 09:34:14 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.

This is it for me.

The claimant maitains that Jackson had rough non consensual vaginal sex with her.
Her story is corroberated (with the obvious exception of consent but this is not contradicted either) by the medical evidence, Dara Florence and the men's own text exchanges.
Jackson's defence is that he didn't have vaginal sex with her and in any case there was no roughness. His evidence has been contradicted by Dara Florence and his own text exchanges and not helped by the other defendants.

If he'd claimed consensual vaginal sex then maybe there'd be some doubt but he doesnt, he's done.
The "rough" wasn't corroborated. A small cut most likely caused by a fingernail. Only bruise of any significance was on the elbow and she didnt know how that arose.

The 2nd doctor disagreed with 1st doctor and said the amount of blood couldnt have come from such a cut and is likely menstrual and said 1st doctor's examination was lacking. So still doubt on that.

Was there evidence to that effect?
Note "most likely"

The 2nd doctor said very unlikely to have been caused by manhood, given no bruising elsewhere. Also shape of nail versus shape of anything else. A ring on a finger would be 2nd most likely I'd guess. There's no doubt he used his fingers.

I'd guess he tried to have a go with the lad but couldn't keep er lit with all the drink. Otherwise he wouldnt have stopped and there'd be fluid evidence.

Sounds like McIlroy heard a version of what happened to Olding and in his haze of drink imagined it happened to himself! A complete BS artist is my guess! 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on March 09, 2018, 02:06:22 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 09, 2018, 12:56:31 PM
I heard this house described as a "gang banging house" by someone that knows of it so I doubt the "sharing" and taking turns is anything new for these fellas

Since you've broken the ice Minder, I heard something similar recently and that Mammy and Daddy Jackson have bailed young Patrick out in the recent past allegedly.....
Could all be bullshit as I'm obviously going on nth hand information.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: DuffleKing on March 09, 2018, 03:00:48 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 09, 2018, 02:06:22 PM
Since you've broken the ice Minder, I heard something similar recently and that Mammy and Daddy Jackson have bailed young Patrick out in the recent past allegedly.....
Could all be bullshit as I'm obviously going on nth hand information.


Why would you bother your hole typing that sort of garbage out?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on March 09, 2018, 03:24:18 PM
Quote from: DuffleKing on March 09, 2018, 03:00:48 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 09, 2018, 02:06:22 PM
Since you've broken the ice Minder, I heard something similar recently and that Mammy and Daddy Jackson have bailed young Patrick out in the recent past allegedly.....
Could all be bullshit as I'm obviously going on nth hand information.


Why would you bother your hole typing that sort of garbage out?

Because Minder had heard of similar incidents with our Patrick which gave a bit of credence to my source which i'd known about for a few weeks now and didn't post.

Patricks wholesome character that he was portraying in Court looks to be garbage.

You can chose to ignore it if you want, I'm sure you're a big enough boy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on March 09, 2018, 03:36:23 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 09, 2018, 03:24:18 PM
Quote from: DuffleKing on March 09, 2018, 03:00:48 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 09, 2018, 02:06:22 PM
Since you've broken the ice Minder, I heard something similar recently and that Mammy and Daddy Jackson have bailed young Patrick out in the recent past allegedly.....
Could all be bullshit as I'm obviously going on nth hand information.


Why would you bother your hole typing that sort of garbage out?


Because Minder had heard of similar incidents with our Patrick which gave a bit of credence to my source which i'd known about for a few weeks now and didn't post.

Patricks wholesome character that he was portraying in Court looks to be garbage.

You can chose to ignore it if you want, I'm sure you're a big enough boy.




But Declan fitzpatrick or some such named Z rated ex team mate said hes a lovely lad and came to his stag and wedding and had a similar sense of humour...

what is the point of those fecking character witnesses
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 09, 2018, 03:42:17 PM
Wow some real scummy comments on here...a new low point. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 09, 2018, 03:43:40 PM
You'd have to wonder about the competence of the defence team allowing McIlroy take the stand. I understand Jackson (had to explain his version of the Dara Florence interruption), neutral re Olding, but nothing to be gained and only something to be lost by letting the other 2 talk. McIlroy, in particular because he's a headcase (and maybe an imbecile), and Harrison because he was genuinely worried something untoward had happened even though he hadnt witnessed it first hand.

Unsure re whether Harrison will take the stand, but McIlroy as a defence witness has not helped the defence one iota, and could very well have damaged it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 09, 2018, 03:57:32 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 09, 2018, 03:43:40 PM
You'd have to wonder about the competence of the defence team allowing McIlroy take the stand. I understand Jackson (had to explain his version of the Dara Florence interruption), neutral re Olding, but nothing to be gained and only something to be lost by letting the other 2 talk. McIlroy, in particular because he's a headcase (and maybe an imbecile), and Harrison because he was genuinely worried something untoward had happened even though he hadnt witnessed it first hand.

Unsure re whether Harrison will take the stand, but McIlroy as a defence witness has not helped the defence one iota, and could very well have damaged it

I'd say at this stage McIlroy's QC has said "It's every man for himself here, you've got to concentrate on your case not theirs.  Every chance they'll get off and you'll be convicted"

If I were Harrison I'd probably risk taking the stand.  He wasn't involved in the alleged sexual assault, the girl has no complaints about his behaviour (quite the opposite) and he could portray himself as an decent, ordinary guy caught up in an extraordinary situation and panicked a bit, deleted some texts etc which I now regret etc etc
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 04:21:05 PM
The whole McIlroy angle is very strange altogether. Not sure if Toby Hedworth has the right of it in saying he messed up his lines and put himself at the heart of it rather than Olding but the differences in the accounts are striking.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 09, 2018, 05:35:48 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 09, 2018, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 09, 2018, 12:31:34 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 09, 2018, 12:25:37 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 09, 2018, 12:19:43 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2018, 09:34:14 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 09, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.

This is it for me.

The claimant maitains that Jackson had rough non consensual vaginal sex with her.
Her story is corroberated (with the obvious exception of consent but this is not contradicted either) by the medical evidence, Dara Florence and the men's own text exchanges.
Jackson's defence is that he didn't have vaginal sex with her and in any case there was no roughness. His evidence has been contradicted by Dara Florence and his own text exchanges and not helped by the other defendants.

If he'd claimed consensual vaginal sex then maybe there'd be some doubt but he doesnt, he's done.
The "rough" wasn't corroborated. A small cut most likely caused by a fingernail. Only bruise of any significance was on the elbow and she didnt know how that arose.

The 2nd doctor disagreed with 1st doctor and said the amount of blood couldnt have come from such a cut and is likely menstrual and said 1st doctor's examination was lacking. So still doubt on that.

Was there evidence to that effect?
Note "most likely"

The 2nd doctor said very unlikely to have been caused by manhood, given no bruising elsewhere. Also shape of nail versus shape of anything else. A ring on a finger would be 2nd most likely I'd guess. There's no doubt he used his fingers.

I'd guess he tried to have a go with the lad but couldn't keep er lit with all the drink. Otherwise he wouldnt have stopped and there'd be fluid evidence.

Sounds like McIlroy heard a version of what happened to Olding and in his haze of drink imagined it happened to himself! A complete BS artist is my guess!

The second doctor never examined the complainant.

Dr. Lavery described the cut as "a full laceration tear".

Now I don't have a vagina, but I can certainly see how blood could still be coming from a wound described as "a full laceration tear" after 14 hours.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on March 09, 2018, 10:30:55 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 09, 2018, 03:57:32 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 09, 2018, 03:43:40 PM
You'd have to wonder about the competence of the defence team allowing McIlroy take the stand. I understand Jackson (had to explain his version of the Dara Florence interruption), neutral re Olding, but nothing to be gained and only something to be lost by letting the other 2 talk. McIlroy, in particular because he's a headcase (and maybe an imbecile), and Harrison because he was genuinely worried something untoward had happened even though he hadnt witnessed it first hand.

Unsure re whether Harrison will take the stand, but McIlroy as a defence witness has not helped the defence one iota, and could very well have damaged it

I'd say at this stage McIlroy's QC has said "It's every man for himself here, you've got to concentrate on your case not theirs.  Every chance they'll get off and you'll be convicted"

If I were Harrison I'd probably risk taking the stand.  He wasn't involved in the alleged sexual assault, the girl has no complaints about his behaviour (quite the opposite) and he could portray himself as an decent, ordinary guy caught up in an extraordinary situation and panicked a bit, deleted some texts etc which I now regret etc etc
From what I could gather the case against Harrison is weak but I thought possibly he was charged because the statement he made to the police could then be introduced in court and effect some damage to the other 3.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 09, 2018, 11:23:07 PM
He is included to boost the contention that the group conspired to make up their agreedversion when they met afterwards. Shown by no similar charge for McIlroy even though he also deleted evidence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 11:28:47 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 09, 2018, 11:23:07 PM
He is included to boost the contention that the group conspired to make up their agreedversion when they met afterwards. Shown by no similar charge for McIlroy even though he also deleted evidence.

Harrison tried to run interference after the deed and keep a lid on the girl. Making out there's massive equivalence between what he and McIlroy did is a serious misreading. McIlroy comes across as a total header, Harrison much more calculated in his actions.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on March 09, 2018, 11:34:36 PM
Harrison is about the only defendant you'd pity. Comforts the poor girl and looks after her and then gets charged for arranging the worst cover up in ni criminal history. His name and face is tied to this shit show and all the gory details despite being innocent of any sexual harassment or rape. He's also not the author of any of the messsages that belittled the defendant or bragging about his sexual exploits.

If he'd have turned his back to her as left the house in tears it would've rewarded him a thousand times over. He's probably a decent fella who seen a young woman needing help and comfort and it's that act of decency that dragged him into this sordid mess. It's incredible how small actions can have such extraordinary repercussions.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 11:35:25 PM
Quote from: trileacman on March 09, 2018, 11:34:36 PM
Harrison is about the only defendant you'd pity. Comforts the poor girl and looks after her and then gets charged for arranging the worst cover up in ni criminal history. His name and face is tied to this shit show and all the gory details despite being innocent of any sexual harassment or rape. He's also not the author of any of the messsages that belittled the defendant or bragging about his sexual exploits.

If he'd have turned his back to her as left the house in tears it would've rewarded him a thousand times over. He's probably a decent fella who seen a young woman needing help and comfort and it's that act of decency that dragged him into this sordid mess. It's incredible how small actions can have such extraordinary repercussions.

It would take you to feel sorry for the most obviously guilty of the lot.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on March 09, 2018, 11:37:31 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 11:35:25 PM
Quote from: trileacman on March 09, 2018, 11:34:36 PM
Harrison is about the only defendant you'd pity. Comforts the poor girl and looks after her and then gets charged for arranging the worst cover up in ni criminal history. His name and face is tied to this shit show and all the gory details despite being innocent of any sexual harassment or rape. He's also not the author of any of the messsages that belittled the defendant or bragging about his sexual exploits.

If he'd have turned his back to her as left the house in tears it would've rewarded him a thousand times over. He's probably a decent fella who seen a young woman needing help and comfort and it's that act of decency that dragged him into this sordid mess. It's incredible how small actions can have such extraordinary repercussions.

It would take you to feel sorry for the most obviously guilt of the lot.

You should just reply "HANG THEM WITHOUT TRIAL!!!" after every quote.

It would save a lot of typing and better encapsulate your opinion on the matter.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on March 09, 2018, 11:48:54 PM
Quote from: trileacman on March 06, 2018, 12:36:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 05, 2018, 02:26:59 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 05, 2018, 01:48:49 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 04, 2018, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on March 04, 2018, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 04, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
https://www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032?__twitter_impression=true

Excellent stuff from joe.ie.
Reading the flow of messages I'm even more convinced they didn't rape her.

I'd believe so too. Some strange behaviour on her part. "Lol", "got raped, brilliant night". Whilst you can make an argument in favour of her non-resistance as a manifestation of the horror she was enduring, I'm just not sure how you can present sarcasm as a typical response to a rape event.

I'm not going to even bother to try to unpack that absolute garbage of a post.

Playing the man not the ball, typical petty diversion tactics there syf.

I'd say you're unable to counter that piece of evidence without reaching for the ould "physcological effect of rape" argument. Give it a go there, your so convinced of their guilt you should be able to reason up some excuse.

Still waiting on an answer there Scalia.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on March 10, 2018, 12:15:55 AM
Can we all just stop responding to Syferus, he has ruined this thread but putting him on ignore is half the battle. I have used the ignore function but unfortunately anything quoted still shows up. We might get some more reasoned debate and less of the Helen lovejoy melodramatics
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 10, 2018, 12:41:49 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 10, 2018, 12:15:55 AM
Can we all just stop responding to Syferus, he has ruined this thread but putting him on ignore is half the battle. I have used the ignore function but unfortunately anything quoted still shows up. We might get some more reasoned debate and less of the Helen lovejoy melodramatics

Once he puts up his legal qualifications I'll ignore
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 10, 2018, 05:29:31 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 09, 2018, 11:34:36 PM
Harrison is about the only defendant you'd pity. Comforts the poor girl and looks after her and then gets charged for arranging the worst cover up in ni criminal history. His name and face is tied to this shit show and all the gory details despite being innocent of any sexual harassment or rape. He's also not the author of any of the messsages that belittled the defendant or bragging about his sexual exploits.

If he'd have turned his back to her as left the house in tears it would've rewarded him a thousand times over. He's probably a decent fella who seen a young woman needing help and comfort and it's that act of decency that dragged him into this sordid mess. It's incredible how small actions can have such extraordinary repercussions.
+1. I think he was trying his best in a very bad situation. I hope he gets cleared.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 10, 2018, 08:22:28 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 10, 2018, 05:29:31 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 09, 2018, 11:34:36 PM
Harrison is about the only defendant you'd pity. Comforts the poor girl and looks after her and then gets charged for arranging the worst cover up in ni criminal history. His name and face is tied to this shit show and all the gory details despite being innocent of any sexual harassment or rape. He's also not the author of any of the messsages that belittled the defendant or bragging about his sexual exploits.

If he'd have turned his back to her as left the house in tears it would've rewarded him a thousand times over. He's probably a decent fella who seen a young woman needing help and comfort and it's that act of decency that dragged him into this sordid mess. It's incredible how small actions can have such extraordinary repercussions.
+1. I think he was trying his best in a very bad situation. I hope he gets cleared.
Me too.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Ty4Sam on March 10, 2018, 09:19:44 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 10, 2018, 08:22:28 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 10, 2018, 05:29:31 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 09, 2018, 11:34:36 PM
Harrison is about the only defendant you'd pity. Comforts the poor girl and looks after her and then gets charged for arranging the worst cover up in ni criminal history. His name and face is tied to this shit show and all the gory details despite being innocent of any sexual harassment or rape. He's also not the author of any of the messsages that belittled the defendant or bragging about his sexual exploits.

If he'd have turned his back to her as left the house in tears it would've rewarded him a thousand times over. He's probably a decent fella who seen a young woman needing help and comfort and it's that act of decency that dragged him into this sordid mess. It's incredible how small actions can have such extraordinary repercussions.
+1. I think he was trying his best in a very bad situation. I hope he gets cleared.
Me too.

I've a feeling the prosecution barrister is going to give him a tough time this morning.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 10, 2018, 12:56:34 PM
"More flutes than the 12th of July" is very northern Ireland and presumably only used in very specific situations which would require more than 2 flutes. McIlroy would seem to be on a shaky scraw.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on March 10, 2018, 02:40:40 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 10, 2018, 12:56:34 PM
"More flutes than the 12th of July" is very northern Ireland and presumably only used in very specific situations which would require more than 2 flutes. McIlroy would seem to be on a shaky scraw.

I've never heard that term. Then again, I've never been invited to any orgies.

Also, whether Syferus likes it or not, there are a spectrum of women from Nuns to Sluts. In the eyes of the rugby players, they seem to attract a few amount of the latter in their nights out in Belfast.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 10, 2018, 02:44:25 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 10, 2018, 02:40:40 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 10, 2018, 12:56:34 PM
"More flutes than the 12th of July" is very northern Ireland and presumably only used in very specific situations which would require more than 2 flutes. McIlroy would seem to be on a shaky scraw.

I've never heard that term. Then again, I've never been invited to any orgies.

Also, whether Syferus likes it or not, there are a spectrum of women from Nuns to Sluts. In the eyes of the rugby players, they seem to attract a few amount of the latter in their nights out in Belfast.

A man who likes to have sex is a legend, a women who does is a slut. Puritanical bullshît as always.

And it doesn't mean anything if there's no consent. It's still rape. Fixating on demeaning the women when it has absolutely nothing to do with the case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on March 10, 2018, 02:52:31 PM
If she blew Olding until he came it's hard to imagine that happening if no consent?  Nothing worse than a bad BJ! 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 10, 2018, 03:19:10 PM
Harrison question by his defence QC this morning. A legal issue has arisen and court will be back on Monday at 2:30pm.

One thing that did come out is that it seems the police didn't take his phone until October and there are texts from August that his phone had some sort of meltdown.

A few of his answers sounded a bit dodgy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: CiKe on March 10, 2018, 06:36:52 PM
Very hard if not impossible to believe he got text saying it wasn't consensual and didn't mention it.

At same time hard to fathom them meeting up to get their stories straight about a gang rape in a public place as opposed to someone's house.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 10, 2018, 06:39:55 PM
Stories straight?  Nothing straight about anyone's stories
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 10, 2018, 06:55:23 PM
Harrison told McIlroy to leave his phone at home when being questioned by police and people here wonder why he was charged. Christ above.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 10, 2018, 06:56:55 PM
Harrison seemed to remember nearly everything about the night...except the nature of the two phone calls with McIlroy, one of which lasted over 2 mins :-\
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 10, 2018, 07:46:45 PM
Harrison came across as very decent. The only one to help the claimant.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 10, 2018, 07:55:23 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 10, 2018, 07:46:45 PM
Harrison came across as very decent. The only one to help the claimant.

Had he no text messages at all?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 10, 2018, 09:56:04 PM
It was good to see Rory Best and his kids interviewed after the match today
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on March 11, 2018, 07:59:45 PM
Called to see the Mammy day that's in it: says she, "that pup Paddy Jackson must be kicking himself with Ireland doing so well at the rugby." Interesting thought process...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on March 11, 2018, 08:14:10 PM
Quote from: longballin on March 11, 2018, 07:59:45 PM
Called to see the Mammy day that's in it: says she, "that pup Paddy Jackson must be kicking himself with Ireland doing so well at the rugby." Interesting thought process...

Mammy's are lovely.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on March 11, 2018, 08:16:32 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 10, 2018, 09:56:04 PM
It was good to see Rory Best and his kids interviewed after the match today

Well he is a family man. Before the November match against Argentina, he met school children from the two schools in Poyntzpass and paid for their tour of the Aviva.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hardy on March 11, 2018, 08:32:51 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 11, 2018, 08:14:10 PM
Quote from: longballin on March 11, 2018, 07:59:45 PM
Called to see the Mammy day that's in it: says she, "that pup Paddy Jackson must be kicking himself with Ireland doing so well at the rugby." Interesting thought process...

Mammy's are lovely.
:o
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on March 11, 2018, 08:52:05 PM
Quote from: Hardy on March 11, 2018, 08:32:51 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 11, 2018, 08:14:10 PM
Quote from: longballin on March 11, 2018, 07:59:45 PM
Called to see the Mammy day that's in it: says she, "that pup Paddy Jackson must be kicking himself with Ireland doing so well at the rugby." Interesting thought process...

Mammy's are lovely.
:o

wasn't sure how to take that comment either  lol! I suppose they are!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: keeperlit on March 12, 2018, 09:25:16 AM
Quote from: Orior on March 11, 2018, 08:16:32 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 10, 2018, 09:56:04 PM
It was good to see Rory Best and his kids interviewed after the match today

Well he is a family man. Before the November match against Argentina, he met school children from the two schools in Poyntzpass and paid for their tour of the Aviva.

The power of PR! ;D ;D ;D Wonder would there be any grants for this sort of cross community thing?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on March 12, 2018, 10:10:38 AM
These guys defence seems to be that this girl was handing out BJ's left right and centre. And none of them thought this strange. Is this what goes on at parties? My experience of after-parties is you usually got a bottle of some weird beer, half drunk it, passed out in a very uncomfortable position on a sofa, woke up foundered at about 7am, then rang a mate who had the sense to go home to come and lift you.

If any story is unbelievable its the defences.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 12, 2018, 10:21:07 AM
After parties tend to be different in the city.
Narcotics freely available and plenty of women partying hard
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on March 12, 2018, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Taylor on March 12, 2018, 10:21:07 AM
After parties tend to be different in the city.
Narcotics freely available and plenty of women partying hard

Ahhy dead on big lad. Just mad drug fuelled orgies going on in the city every night of the week.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on March 12, 2018, 10:42:30 AM
Quote from: Taylor on March 12, 2018, 10:21:07 AM
After parties tend to be different in the city.
Narcotics freely available and plenty of women partying hard
So is spit-roasting popular in rugby circles?   
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 12, 2018, 10:43:27 AM
Quote from: trailer on March 12, 2018, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Taylor on March 12, 2018, 10:21:07 AM
After parties tend to be different in the city.
Narcotics freely available and plenty of women partying hard

Ahhy dead on big lad. Just mad drug fuelled orgies going on in the city every night of the week.

No  ::)
But having attended parties back home and in the city I can tell you they are very different
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on March 12, 2018, 01:53:25 PM
I heard it too, all it is is rumour, unless someone can verify it I'll treat it as such. Even if it was fact, it's not something imo that should ever be submitted as evidence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 12, 2018, 01:54:36 PM
That's quite a statement Dinny. Are you sure that's true? If not, it should be removed.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 12, 2018, 01:58:09 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 12, 2018, 01:54:36 PM
That's quite a statement Dinny. Are you sure that's true? If not, it should be removed.
If the Garda told him directly, I would say it's fair game for a nonsense internet board like this. If a Garda told a friend, then a friend told Dinny, then I'd remove as there's a bigger chance there was lie told to dinny
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on March 12, 2018, 02:01:48 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 12, 2018, 01:54:36 PM
That's quite a statement Dinny. Are you sure that's true? If not, it should be removed.

It was a Guard who has been involved in a lot of sexual crime investigations. It's was hinted at earlier in the trial by the defence when they talked about the complainant and why she was in the night club. Anyway I never agreed with this thread in the first place so will take it down.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 12, 2018, 02:03:05 PM
Why would the defence not be allowed to submit such a thing as evidence??? If it was true??

The number of grown ups on here engaging in the wildest speculation, tittle tattle and gossip and posting opinions based on the flimsiest of rumours is amazing. And sad.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on March 12, 2018, 02:03:36 PM
MR2 and JC should delete the quoted text.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 12, 2018, 02:12:43 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 12, 2018, 02:03:05 PM
Why would the defence not be allowed to submit such a thing as evidence??? If it was true??

The number of grown ups on here engaging in the wildest speculation, tittle tattle and gossip and posting opinions based on the flimsiest of rumours is amazing. And sad.

There's plenty of legal reasons why such evidence couldn't be adduced if and I stress if it were true in the first place. There are very strict rules on the admissibility of a complainants previous sexual history in rape trials and for good reasons. Just because it hasn't been admitted doesn't mean it's either true or not true.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 12, 2018, 02:17:41 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 12, 2018, 02:03:05 PM
Why would the defence not be allowed to submit such a thing as evidence??? If it was true??

The number of grown ups on here engaging in the wildest speculation, tittle tattle and gossip and posting opinions based on the flimsiest of rumours is amazing. And sad.

Have you time travelled here from the 18th Century or something?!

Welcome to the new world!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 12, 2018, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 12, 2018, 02:12:43 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 12, 2018, 02:03:05 PM
Why would the defence not be allowed to submit such a thing as evidence??? If it was true??

The number of grown ups on here engaging in the wildest speculation, tittle tattle and gossip and posting opinions based on the flimsiest of rumours is amazing. And sad.

There's plenty of legal reasons why such evidence couldn't be adduced if and I stress if it were true in the first place. There are very strict rules on the admissibility of a complainants previous sexual history in rape trials and for good reasons. Just because it hasn't been admitted doesn't mean it's either true or not true.

could those be some of the legal issues the court has been dealing with?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 02:41:03 PM
As clockwork as rain, insinuations against a rape victim. What a tired and old playbook.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 12, 2018, 02:43:25 PM
No I havent travelled from the 18fh C, but I did ...completely wrongly as it turns out....think that most of the posters on here were good solid Gaa heads who wouldnt stoop to the lowest common denominator in a situation like this. Sickening to see people that seemed sensible and decent almost doing themselves an injury in their haste to post the most scurrilous shite they heard down the pub the night before.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 12, 2018, 02:50:32 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 02:41:03 PM
As clockwork as rain, insinuations against a rape victim. What a tired and old playbook.

Insinuations?  No absolutely not. She allegedly made a complaint before. No one made any insinuation. Frankly Syferus the way you have behaved on here over this whole case is shocking. You have these men hung drawn and quartered based on the reports from the media. I know for an absolute fact that not everything is reported as I know people involved in it and am keeping my counsel. There is a pretty strong possibility of acquittal here due to the level of confusion and what Dinny referred to in regards to the what his Garda friend stated is very much the case it seems. You don't know if she was raped. You believe she was. No one on here does. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 12, 2018, 02:54:15 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 12, 2018, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 12, 2018, 02:12:43 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 12, 2018, 02:03:05 PM
Why would the defence not be allowed to submit such a thing as evidence??? If it was true??

The number of grown ups on here engaging in the wildest speculation, tittle tattle and gossip and posting opinions based on the flimsiest of rumours is amazing. And sad.

There's plenty of legal reasons why such evidence couldn't be adduced if and I stress if it were true in the first place. There are very strict rules on the admissibility of a complainants previous sexual history in rape trials and for good reasons. Just because it hasn't been admitted doesn't mean it's either true or not true.

could those be some of the legal issues the court has been dealing with?

Hard to know. Legal issues pop up in all trials.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 12, 2018, 03:04:37 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 12, 2018, 02:54:15 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 12, 2018, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 12, 2018, 02:12:43 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 12, 2018, 02:03:05 PM
Why would the defence not be allowed to submit such a thing as evidence??? If it was true??

The number of grown ups on here engaging in the wildest speculation, tittle tattle and gossip and posting opinions based on the flimsiest of rumours is amazing. And sad.

There's plenty of legal reasons why such evidence couldn't be adduced if and I stress if it were true in the first place. There are very strict rules on the admissibility of a complainants previous sexual history in rape trials and for good reasons. Just because it hasn't been admitted doesn't mean it's either true or not true.

could those be some of the legal issues the court has been dealing with?

Hard to know. Legal issues pop up in all trials.

Just for interest sake David what are the types of legal issues that are holding up the trial? They didn't start until 2pm today because of a legal issue again.

What kind of issues are they?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 12, 2018, 03:09:05 PM
Nasty first question from the Prosecution to Harrison

P: Would you agree if the complainant is telling the truth then you, Jackson, Olding & McIlroy have good reason to lie?

RH: Yes 

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: theskull1 on March 12, 2018, 03:11:16 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 12, 2018, 02:50:32 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 02:41:03 PM
As clockwork as rain, insinuations against a rape victim. What a tired and old playbook.

Insinuations?  No absolutely not. She allegedly made a complaint before. No one made any insinuation. Frankly Syferus the way you have behaved on here over this whole case is shocking. You have these men hung drawn and quartered based on the reports from the media. I know for an absolute fact that not everything is reported as I know people involved in it and am keeping my counsel. There is a pretty strong possibility of acquittal here due to the level of confusion and what Dinny referred to in regards to the what his Garda friend stated is very much the case it seems. You don't know if she was raped. You believe she was. No one on here does.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXly1kMU0AEgAIz.jpg)
Given his demeanour and position on this thread from the get go ..... this is how I imagine him
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 12, 2018, 03:16:19 PM
If Rosanna Cooney's tweets are accurate, it looks like a bit of a car crash from Harrison here.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 12, 2018, 03:21:42 PM
Cooney and Frank Greaney both tweet that when asked why he (RH) didn't tell the police he had received a text from the complainant saying "what happened last night wasn't consensual" gives the classic answer "because they didn't ask me"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on March 12, 2018, 03:22:12 PM
ah jaysus I tip off for a couple of hours and miss something. what did dinny say...asking for a friend  :D

generally speaking, "not the first time this has happened etc etc"...would this be about it....

must go check in on rosanna, she don't be deleting no tweets I tell thee!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 12, 2018, 03:23:52 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 12, 2018, 02:50:32 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 02:41:03 PM
As clockwork as rain, insinuations against a rape victim. What a tired and old playbook.

Insinuations?  No absolutely not. She allegedly made a complaint before. No one made any insinuation. Frankly Syferus the way you have behaved on here over this whole case is shocking. You have these men hung drawn and quartered based on the reports from the media. I know for an absolute fact that not everything is reported as I know people involved in it and am keeping my counsel. There is a pretty strong possibility of acquittal here due to the level of confusion and what Dinny referred to in regards to the what his Garda friend stated is very much the case it seems. You don't know if she was raped. You believe she was. No one on here does.

Dont waste your time BCB. The majority of the people on here are not arrogant enough to believe they know everything and  freely admit they have not got a clue what went on that night and just want justice done i.e. if they are guilty throw the book at them, if not acquit.

People have speculated what might have happened and discussed the legal issues/challenges facing the jury etc but at every juncture Syferus comes on here on his crusade and basically casts everyone who even contemplates a scenario that does not align with his own  as rape apologists etc etc. He obviously has some insight/knowledge/superior intelligence (subject to google working and him selecting the correct reference) that he is not willing to share... ::) ::)

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 03:24:03 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 12, 2018, 02:50:32 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 02:41:03 PM
As clockwork as rain, insinuations against a rape victim. What a tired and old playbook.

Insinuations?  No absolutely not. She allegedly made a complaint before. No one made any insinuation. Frankly Syferus the way you have behaved on here over this whole case is shocking. You have these men hung drawn and quartered based on the reports from the media. I know for an absolute fact that not everything is reported as I know people involved in it and am keeping my counsel. There is a pretty strong possibility of acquittal here due to the level of confusion and what Dinny referred to in regards to the what his Garda friend stated is very much the case it seems. You don't know if she was raped. You believe she was. No one on here does.

You probably should have stopped there, BC1.

It's very interesting to watch how much dirt is thrown at the girl (the alleged victim) while excuses are made for the alleged rapists. Double standards doesn't begin to describe this thread.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on March 12, 2018, 03:32:40 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 03:24:03 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 12, 2018, 02:50:32 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 02:41:03 PM
As clockwork as rain, insinuations against a rape victim. What a tired and old playbook.

Insinuations?  No absolutely not. She allegedly made a complaint before. No one made any insinuation. Frankly Syferus the way you have behaved on here over this whole case is shocking. You have these men hung drawn and quartered based on the reports from the media. I know for an absolute fact that not everything is reported as I know people involved in it and am keeping my counsel. There is a pretty strong possibility of acquittal here due to the level of confusion and what Dinny referred to in regards to the what his Garda friend stated is very much the case it seems. You don't know if she was raped. You believe she was. No one on here does.

You probably should have stopped there, BC1.

It's very interesting to watch how much dirt is thrown at the girl (the alleged victim) while excuses are made for the alleged rapists. Double standards doesn't begin to describe this thread.

If anything we're quite balanced in throwing dirt in this thread.  8)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 03:38:20 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 12, 2018, 03:32:40 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 03:24:03 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 12, 2018, 02:50:32 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 02:41:03 PM
As clockwork as rain, insinuations against a rape victim. What a tired and old playbook.

Insinuations?  No absolutely not. She allegedly made a complaint before. No one made any insinuation. Frankly Syferus the way you have behaved on here over this whole case is shocking. You have these men hung drawn and quartered based on the reports from the media. I know for an absolute fact that not everything is reported as I know people involved in it and am keeping my counsel. There is a pretty strong possibility of acquittal here due to the level of confusion and what Dinny referred to in regards to the what his Garda friend stated is very much the case it seems. You don't know if she was raped. You believe she was. No one on here does.

You probably should have stopped there, BC1.

It's very interesting to watch how much dirt is thrown at the girl (the alleged victim) while excuses are made for the alleged rapists. Double standards doesn't begin to describe this thread.

If anything we're quite balanced in throwing dirt in this thread.  8)

There are a few good posters alright. A few.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 12, 2018, 03:46:43 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 12, 2018, 03:04:37 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 12, 2018, 02:54:15 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 12, 2018, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 12, 2018, 02:12:43 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 12, 2018, 02:03:05 PM
Why would the defence not be allowed to submit such a thing as evidence??? If it was true??

The number of grown ups on here engaging in the wildest speculation, tittle tattle and gossip and posting opinions based on the flimsiest of rumours is amazing. And sad.

There's plenty of legal reasons why such evidence couldn't be adduced if and I stress if it were true in the first place. There are very strict rules on the admissibility of a complainants previous sexual history in rape trials and for good reasons. Just because it hasn't been admitted doesn't mean it's either true or not true.

could those be some of the legal issues the court has been dealing with?

Hard to know. Legal issues pop up in all trials.

Just for interest sake David what are the types of legal issues that are holding up the trial? They didn't start until 2pm today because of a legal issue again.

What kind of issues are they?

Genuinely hard to tell. They can cover all sorts from issues about bad character through to a discussion of how legal issues should be put to jurors in summing up to issues that arise because of answers to specific questions. Can really be anything. Without being there it would be impossible to tell.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 12, 2018, 03:48:12 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 03:38:20 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 12, 2018, 03:32:40 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 03:24:03 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 12, 2018, 02:50:32 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 02:41:03 PM
As clockwork as rain, insinuations against a rape victim. What a tired and old playbook.

Insinuations?  No absolutely not. She allegedly made a complaint before. No one made any insinuation. Frankly Syferus the way you have behaved on here over this whole case is shocking. You have these men hung drawn and quartered based on the reports from the media. I know for an absolute fact that not everything is reported as I know people involved in it and am keeping my counsel. There is a pretty strong possibility of acquittal here due to the level of confusion and what Dinny referred to in regards to the what his Garda friend stated is very much the case it seems. You don't know if she was raped. You believe she was. No one on here does.

You probably should have stopped there, BC1.

It's very interesting to watch how much dirt is thrown at the girl (the alleged victim) while excuses are made for the alleged rapists. Double standards doesn't begin to describe this thread.

If anything we're quite balanced in throwing dirt in this thread.  8)

There are a few good posters alright. A few.

Ur smugness knows no bounds...beyond laughable that you are so detached from reality that you consider yourself balanced. Or that you are a good poster. Or that u can pronounce on other posters qualities.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on March 12, 2018, 04:02:46 PM
RH not coming across well!

P: Is the complainant a wonderful young woman?
RH: I don't know
P: Or is she a silly young woman?
RH: I think she is someone who has regretted what she's done
P: Regretted what she's done... with who?
RH: I'm not sure.

From Rosanna Cooney.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 12, 2018, 04:14:09 PM
I wonder what good each of the defendants taking the stand has done. Reading the transcaript of Harrison's interview it appears as though he remembers only the small details that exonerates his 3 mates. I think the verdict is in the balance since we are only reading reports in the media, however based on that I can't get past the 'beyond reasonable doubt' which would lead to a conviction. Whatever the outcome though I think the other side will cry foul at the verdict given the level of grey areas that exist in the entire affair.   
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 12, 2018, 04:16:14 PM
If the verdict is guilty, can the accused automatically appeal? And if the verdict is not guilty, does 'double jeopardy'  apply in UK law, or is that limited to the US?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 04:18:10 PM
Prosecution playing a blinder. What was that about Harrison being a sound lad?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 12, 2018, 04:18:56 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 12, 2018, 04:14:09 PM
I wonder what good each of the defendants taking the stand has done. Reading the transcaript of Harrison's interview it appears as though he remembers only the small details that exonerates his 3 mates. I think the verdict is in the balance since we are only reading reports in the media, however based on that I can't get past the 'beyond reasonable doubt' which would lead to a conviction. Whatever the outcome though I think the other side will cry foul at the verdict given the level of grey areas that exist in the entire affair.   

I think the legal term for that is lying through your teeth!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 12, 2018, 04:22:42 PM
Toby Hedworth QC has finished toying with questioning RH.  RH had a character witness.  The defence has no further witnesses, legal argument tomorrow. Closing speeches Wednesday.

That read like a feckin disaster for RH.  He seemed to know a huge amount about something he could remember very little about.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tintin25 on March 12, 2018, 04:23:55 PM
I alluded to it previously, but could say Olding be acquitted due to lack of evidence and Jackson be found guilty? (Based on what an earlier witness saw in the room and given he has denied penetrating?).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 12, 2018, 04:25:13 PM
Tobes filleted Harrison there.

It's amazing the way the defendants claim all these messages they sent between each other mean something other than than what they appear to mean.

It's like the whole thing was surrealist performance art.

Very post-modern and ironic.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Walter Cronc on March 12, 2018, 04:38:41 PM
Could Harrison get done and the rest get off??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on March 12, 2018, 04:42:13 PM
The defence was going pretty well right up until the point they opened their mouths. Their legal team looks like something that was assembled outside Ollie's at 4:00am. Absolute half wits.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 12, 2018, 04:43:55 PM
Timetable:

Wed - Fri has been set aside for closing speeches.  No sitting next Mon or Tues.  Judge will address jury next Wed (21st).  Jury deliberations will start then.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Sweeper 123 on March 12, 2018, 04:44:19 PM
Have to agree - the prosecution QC looks to be knowing what he is doing - while the defense and their witnesses look like muppets that are not prepared
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 12, 2018, 04:48:59 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 12, 2018, 04:16:14 PM
If the verdict is guilty, can the accused automatically appeal? And if the verdict is not guilty, does 'double jeopardy'  apply in UK law, or is that limited to the US?

There's no automatic right of appeal, any appeal must be on a point of law. In first instance any appeal would be to a single judge on written arguments who may or may not grant leave. A three judge panel will then hear the arguments and will either grant or refuse leave. If they refus leave that's the end of the matter. If they grant leave they will consider the merits of the appeal and rule accordingly.

From what I've read (usual caveats applying) the prosecution seem to have done a good job of making the defendants look either confused or like liars. There's not much I've read though to make me think they ha e made the complainant version any more believable. For a conviction she has to be believed at least as far as it relates to Jackson, Olding and McIlroy. For an acquittal they don't have to be believed at all.

It will be interesting to see what the Jury decides having heard all of the evidence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 12, 2018, 04:49:43 PM
I don't think any of the defendants are credible. Harrison and McIlroy in particular were all over the place.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on March 12, 2018, 04:56:33 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 12, 2018, 04:49:43 PM
I don't think any of the defendants are credible. Harrison and McIlroy in particular were all over the place.

I don't know if McIlroy comes across as an arsehole or (and I genuinely mean this) somewhat aloof with no real cognitive thoughts.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 12, 2018, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: trailer on March 12, 2018, 04:56:33 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 12, 2018, 04:49:43 PM
I don't think any of the defendants are credible. Harrison and McIlroy in particular were all over the place.

I don't know if McIlroy comes across as an arsehole or (and I genuinely mean this) somewhat aloof with no real cognitive thoughts.

A sociopath maybe!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on March 12, 2018, 05:03:09 PM
Quote from: trailer on March 12, 2018, 04:56:33 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 12, 2018, 04:49:43 PM
I don't think any of the defendants are credible. Harrison and McIlroy in particular were all over the place.

I don't know if McIlroy comes across as an arsehole or (and I genuinely mean this) somewhat aloof with no real cognitive thoughts.

Syferus?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on March 12, 2018, 05:04:06 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 12, 2018, 05:03:09 PM
Quote from: trailer on March 12, 2018, 04:56:33 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 12, 2018, 04:49:43 PM
I don't think any of the defendants are credible. Harrison and McIlroy in particular were all over the place.

I don't know if McIlroy comes across as an arsehole or (and I genuinely mean this) somewhat aloof with no real cognitive thoughts.

Syferus?

:o
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 12, 2018, 05:50:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 12, 2018, 04:49:43 PM
I don't think any of the defendants are credible. Harrison and McIlroy in particular were all over the place.

Agreed.  Their evidence was pure dung from start to finish.  The only thing they agreed on was to use the word "consensual" as much as possible.  If I was on the jury I'd be thinking, "I can discount all the defendants' evidence...now do I believe the girl?"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 12, 2018, 06:03:04 PM
If I was Harrison I wouldn't back the other 3. He came across as reserved and not the orgy type. Why would he take one for team flute?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Therealdonald on March 12, 2018, 06:05:05 PM
Reading the excerpts from Cooney's tweets makes for uncomfortable reading. Is Harrison trying to throw himself under the bus?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 06:08:28 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 12, 2018, 06:03:04 PM
If I was Harrison I wouldn't back the other 3. He came across as reserved and not the orgy type. Why would he take one for team flute?

"Bros before hoes"

Why are you expecting anything else from a bunch of entitled meatheads?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Therealdonald on March 12, 2018, 06:40:04 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 12, 2018, 06:08:28 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 12, 2018, 06:03:04 PM
If I was Harrison I wouldn't back the other 3. He came across as reserved and not the orgy type. Why would he take one for team flute?

"Bros before hoes"

Why are you expecting anything else from a bunch of entitled meatheads?

Syf, did you apply to get into Queen's or something and got rejected?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 13, 2018, 09:06:24 AM
Defence has been an absolute joke! Allowing McIlroy and Harrison take the stand was a disaster, and completely predictably so. That's a big disadvantage of having 4 separate defence teams, as they all try and save themselves rather than having a co-ordinated approach. I wondered at the start why McIlroy and Harrison were even charged, but the prosecution knew exactly what they were doing.

Having said all that, I think not guilty is still a strong possibility. Frozen/complying when you've no way out, when it's the least worst option is not only believable, its almost automatic. However, when you've 3 other girls nearby, when there's no violence or threats, when you take off your own top, when one scream would have ended it all, when a rescuer actually comes into the room and you ignore her, I couldn't vote guilty. But I haven't seen every piece of evidence, so will see what the jury comes up with.

Perjury on the other hand, especially for McIlory, I'd vote for that all day long!   
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 13, 2018, 01:18:21 PM
As a fireside lawyer and with all the usual caveats after the defence screwed up by putting them on the stand at the moment I think Harrison & McIlroy could get done and the other two get off.

Could change my mind as the verdicts approach but the reasonable doubt could be enough to get PJ & SO off.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 13, 2018, 01:44:03 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility

While it seems clear they are all telling lies or at the very least dont clearly remember what happened I had thought Harrison is more at risk for what he is charged of given the deleted texts/forgotten phone calls/not telling the police info

Cant see strong enough reasonable doubt to convict the other two of rape
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 13, 2018, 01:45:15 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility

I know what you are saying BCB and I think the decision of PJ and SO will definitely influence the jury but do you know what that the standing is from a legal perspective? I would assume that irrespective of whether a crime had been committed, taking actions that hinder a police investigation into an alleged crime could be convicted on a standalone basis? This is probably one of those cases where a hypothetical jury comprised of legal professionals could come to a very different verdict to a "normal" jury.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 13, 2018, 02:04:58 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 13, 2018, 01:45:15 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility

I know what you are saying BCB and I think the decision of PJ and SO will definitely influence the jury but do you know what that the standing is from a legal perspective? I would assume that irrespective of whether a crime had been committed, taking actions that hinder a police investigation into an alleged crime could be convicted on a standalone basis? This is probably one of those cases where a hypothetical jury comprised of legal professionals could come to a very different verdict to a "normal" jury.

Yeah. Harrison doesn't know for definite that there wasn't a crime committed so even if Jackson and Olding are found not guilty I think Harrison could be found guilty but then again I've no qualifications or experience in this area.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 02:11:00 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 13, 2018, 01:45:15 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility

I know what you are saying BCB and I think the decision of PJ and SO will definitely influence the jury but do you know what that the standing is from a legal perspective? I would assume that irrespective of whether a crime had been committed, taking actions that hinder a police investigation into an alleged crime could be convicted on a standalone basis? This is probably one of those cases where a hypothetical jury comprised of legal professionals could come to a very different verdict to a "normal" jury.

He can be found guilty even though the other two are found not guilty but I think the jury will be looking at it as an all duck or no dinner type scenario.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 13, 2018, 02:12:01 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility
Why would McIlroy be convicted of exposure and not Olding of rape and Jackson of at least sexual assault?

The woman alleges that the sexual contact with Jackson and Olding was not consensual. Jackson and Olding allege it was consensual.

The woman alleges that McIlroy exposing himself was uninvited on her part. McIlroy alleges it was invited.

It basically all comes down to to the same questions of whether consent was given or not, or whether there was reasonable belief in consent, across all three of these defendants.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 13, 2018, 02:34:01 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 09:06:24 AM
Defence has been an absolute joke! Allowing McIlroy and Harrison take the stand was a disaster, and completely predictably so. That's a big disadvantage of having 4 separate defence teams, as they all try and save themselves rather than having a co-ordinated approach. I wondered at the start why McIlroy and Harrison were even charged, but the prosecution knew exactly what they were doing.

Having said all that, I think not guilty is still a strong possibility. Frozen/complying when you've no way out, when it's the least worst option is not only believable, its almost automatic. However, when you've 3 other girls nearby, when there's no violence or threats, when you take off your own top, when one scream would have ended it all, when a rescuer actually comes into the room and you ignore her, I couldn't vote guilty. But I haven't seen every piece of evidence, so will see what the jury comes up with.

Perjury on the other hand, especially for McIlory, I'd vote for that all day long!
Great post Hound. Would agree with all of that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 03:09:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 13, 2018, 02:12:01 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility
Why would McIlroy be convicted of exposure and not Olding of rape and Jackson of at least sexual assault?

The woman alleges that the sexual contact with Jackson and Olding was not consensual. Jackson and Olding allege it was consensual.

The woman alleges that McIlroy exposing himself was uninvited on her part. McIlroy alleges it was invited.

It basically all comes down to to the same questions of whether consent was given or not, or whether there was reasonable belief in consent, across all three of these defendants.

I think it's completely different. The jury would be perfectly entitled to conclude the following. We believe the injured party. There was penetration from both Jackson and Olding, she didn't consent to it. However when we look at all the circumstances we can't be convinced that Jackson and Olding didn't reasonably believe she was consenting. We also believe that no penetration occurred with McIlroy however in all the circumstances we don't believe he had a reasonable belief she was consenting to him exposing himself.

In such a scenario Jackson and Olding would be not guilty and McIlroy would be guilty. I still have no idea what the substance of the charges are against Harrison.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2018, 03:30:25 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think

And teachers.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: angermanagement on March 13, 2018, 03:35:35 PM
Doctors, nurses, pharmacists etc.

If your self employed or own your own business your accountant can write a letter to the court stating your business wouldn't survive while you were on jury service you can get an exemption.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:44:27 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think
But in a 50/50 pool, the chances of randomly picking 9/3 in favour of one is miniscule.
So something must change the dynamics.
Someone said earlier in the thread that the "challenge with or without cause" is US tv stuff and not real and that you can only challenge if there's a direct link to the case or someone is clearly biased
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 13, 2018, 03:53:00 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children


I had heard plenty by the time I decided they were probably guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tintin25 on March 13, 2018, 03:57:37 PM
Quote from: tintin25 on March 12, 2018, 04:23:55 PM
I alluded to it previously, but could say Olding be acquitted due to lack of evidence and Jackson be found guilty? (Based on what an earlier witness saw in the room and given he has denied penetrating?).

Anyone?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: mackers on March 13, 2018, 03:59:02 PM
I wouldn't be saying that a jury with more men would necessarily more likely to let them off either. I was on a jury in a sexual abuse case in Newry courthouse. I reckoned the accused was guilty and there were six women on the jury. I was sure that the 6 women would definitely find the accused guilty.  When we got down to the deliberations the six women reckoned that he was innocent.  I was amazed.  We had a hung jury and the case ended up in Belfast at a higher court where the guy was found guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:59:37 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:44:27 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think
But in a 50/50 pool, the chances of randomly picking 9/3 in favour of one is miniscule.
So something must change the dynamics.
Someone said earlier in the thread that the "challenge with or without cause" is US tv stuff and not real and that you can only challenge if there's a direct link to the case or someone is clearly biased

You can challenge with cause. You used to be able to challenge without cause, a peremptory challenge it was known as but it actually  has been abolished in Northern Ireland but funnily enough is still in place in the Republic. It's is not US tv stuff. I had just forgotten about it as I haven't been involved in criminal work for a number of years. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 13, 2018, 04:13:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:44:27 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think
But in a 50/50 pool, the chances of randomly picking 9/3 in favour of one is miniscule.
So something must change the dynamics.
Someone said earlier in the thread that the "challenge with or without cause" is US tv stuff and not real and that you can only challenge if there's a direct link to the case or someone is clearly biased

Quite the opposite in fact, every selection is 50/50 but the previous selection has no influence on the current outcome. It's like flipping a coin. So any given makeup (12/0, 9/3, 6/6, 0/12) has an equal chance of occurring
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Clov on March 13, 2018, 04:17:01 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:44:27 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think
But in a 50/50 pool, the chances of randomly picking 9/3 in favour of one is miniscule.
So something must change the dynamics.
Someone said earlier in the thread that the "challenge with or without cause" is US tv stuff and not real and that you can only challenge if there's a direct link to the case or someone is clearly biased

Actually it isn't. The probability of getting a 9:3 split, or one more extreme, is 14.6%. In other words approximately 1 in 7 juries drawn from a population in which there are equal numbers of men and women will have a 9:3, or 10:2 or 11:1 or 12:0 split in one direction or the other.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 13, 2018, 04:17:21 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 03:09:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 13, 2018, 02:12:01 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility
Why would McIlroy be convicted of exposure and not Olding of rape and Jackson of at least sexual assault?

The woman alleges that the sexual contact with Jackson and Olding was not consensual. Jackson and Olding allege it was consensual.

The woman alleges that McIlroy exposing himself was uninvited on her part. McIlroy alleges it was invited.

It basically all comes down to to the same questions of whether consent was given or not, or whether there was reasonable belief in consent, across all three of these defendants.

I think it's completely different. The jury would be perfectly entitled to conclude the following. We believe the injured party. There was penetration from both Jackson and Olding, she didn't consent to it. However when we look at all the circumstances we can't be convinced that Jackson and Olding didn't reasonably believe she was consenting. We also believe that no penetration occurred with McIlroy however in all the circumstances we don't believe he had a reasonable belief she was consenting to him exposing himself.

In such a scenario Jackson and Olding would be not guilty and McIlroy would be guilty. I still have no idea what the substance of the charges are against Harrison.

I bow to your superior knowledge and experience here David, but in human nature terms I see it slightly differently.  If the jury believe the complainant then I think all four are for the high jump. On the night in question these guys wouldn't have known consent or non consent if it had bit them in the arse.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 04:40:46 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 13, 2018, 04:17:21 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 03:09:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 13, 2018, 02:12:01 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility
Why would McIlroy be convicted of exposure and not Olding of rape and Jackson of at least sexual assault?

The woman alleges that the sexual contact with Jackson and Olding was not consensual. Jackson and Olding allege it was consensual.

The woman alleges that McIlroy exposing himself was uninvited on her part. McIlroy alleges it was invited.

It basically all comes down to to the same questions of whether consent was given or not, or whether there was reasonable belief in consent, across all three of these defendants.

I think it's completely different. The jury would be perfectly entitled to conclude the following. We believe the injured party. There was penetration from both Jackson and Olding, she didn't consent to it. However when we look at all the circumstances we can't be convinced that Jackson and Olding didn't reasonably believe she was consenting. We also believe that no penetration occurred with McIlroy however in all the circumstances we don't believe he had a reasonable belief she was consenting to him exposing himself.

In such a scenario Jackson and Olding would be not guilty and McIlroy would be guilty. I still have no idea what the substance of the charges are against Harrison.

I bow to your superior knowledge and experience here David, but in human nature terms I see it slightly differently.  If the jury believe the complainant then I think all four are for the high jump. On the night in question these guys wouldn't have known consent or non consent if it had bit them in the arse.

You could well be right. I gave up jury guessing years ago. I could understand not guilty for PJ and SO but guilty for McIlroy. I can't see a situation where PJ and SO are convicted but McIlroy acquitted. I don't know how that would be possible. That's not to say I think those are the likely verdicts just I can't see a situation where convictions for PJ and SO but an acquittal for McIlroy would be deemed a safe verdict.

As to juries in general they are selected at random from people on the electoral registrar. Some people such as teachers nurses, self employed etc can be excused at the discretion of the judge. From there about 15 will be selected randomly and can only be challenged with cause. The first 12 will form the jury and the others may replace them before the trial starts if someone reason one of the original jurors is unsuitable. (For example knows a witness or can attend for entire duration of the trial.) 9/3 split is far from unheard of.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 13, 2018, 05:27:08 PM
The 3 top shaggers were all extremely drunk.

They remind me of a song by Arab Strap

"How am I supposed to walk you home 
When you're at least fifty feet ahead? 
'Cause you walked off in a huff 
And I'm that pissed I can't remember what it was I said"

https://youtu.be/wX4WRlsl6fo

A lot of their replies were post fact or on how they would have behaved if they were as they imagine themselves while sober  and there was no coherence between the 3 .
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 05:32:55 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 13, 2018, 05:27:08 PM
The 3 top shaggers were all extremely drunk.

They remind me of a song by Arab Strap

"How am I supposed to walk you home
When you're at least fifty feet ahead?
'Cause you walked off in a huff
And I'm that pissed I can't remember what it was I said"

https://youtu.be/wX4WRlsl6fo

A lot of their replies were post fact or on how they would have behaved if they were as they imagine themselves while sober  and there was no coherence between the 3 .

Put three drunks at a party and you'll not get the same stories at all every time!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on March 13, 2018, 06:54:03 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2018, 03:30:25 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think

And teachers.

Is that cos they're considered too f***ng stupid to understand a legal argument?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: mrdeeds on March 13, 2018, 08:04:20 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 13, 2018, 07:48:38 PM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on March 13, 2018, 06:54:03 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2018, 03:30:25 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think

And teachers.

Is that cos they're considered too f***ng stupid to understand a legal argument?
Sounds like work.

Primary school teachers.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on March 13, 2018, 09:40:00 PM
Harrison the only one to keep his trousers on and could well be the only one done for his charge.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 09:49:20 PM
What exactly is the allegation against Harrison I've yet to read what it is. Simply deleting messages without more is not a crime.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on March 13, 2018, 09:55:50 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 09:49:20 PM
What exactly is the allegation against Harrison I've yet to read what it is. Simply deleting messages without more is not a crime.

is he not charged with perverting the course of justice / withholding information or will these be dropped when the other three are aquitted?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 13, 2018, 10:01:41 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on March 13, 2018, 09:55:50 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 09:49:20 PM
What exactly is the allegation against Harrison I've yet to read what it is. Simply deleting messages without more is not a crime.

is he not charged with perverting the course of justice / withholding information or will these be dropped when the other three are aquitted?

Why would charges be dropped even if the worst happens and the other three are acquitted? I think you've been watching too much Judge Rinder.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 13, 2018, 10:05:42 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 13, 2018, 04:13:53 PM

Quite the opposite in fact, every selection is 50/50 but the previous selection has no influence on the current outcome. It's like flipping a coin. So any given makeup (12/0, 9/3, 6/6, 0/12) has an equal chance of occurring

Good man Mickey D!! You need to read the probability chapter again.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 13, 2018, 11:06:37 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 10:05:42 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 13, 2018, 04:13:53 PM

Quite the opposite in fact, every selection is 50/50 but the previous selection has no influence on the current outcome. It's like flipping a coin. So any given makeup (12/0, 9/3, 6/6, 0/12) has an equal chance of occurring

Good man Mickey D!! You need to read the probability chapter again.

Doh, my bad. Forgot to account for the fact that there are more ways for some outcomes to happen than others  :(

~ 5% chance of a 9/3 male/female split
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 11:30:56 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on March 13, 2018, 09:55:50 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 09:49:20 PM
What exactly is the allegation against Harrison I've yet to read what it is. Simply deleting messages without more is not a crime.

is he not charged with perverting the course of justice / withholding information or will these be dropped when the other three are aquitted?

See I don't know what the actual allegation is. The charge is committing an act likely to pervert the course of justice. Deleting texts could amount to that but deleting texts is not in and of itself a crime. I've yet to read what the evidence is that these texts were relevant to the alleged crime and/or they were deleted after he became aware or ought to have been aware that the texts may form evidence. I literally have no clue what the allegation against Harrison is either because I've missed it in reports or because it hasn't been reported.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 14, 2018, 08:42:57 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 11:30:56 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on March 13, 2018, 09:55:50 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 09:49:20 PM
What exactly is the allegation against Harrison I've yet to read what it is. Simply deleting messages without more is not a crime.

is he not charged with perverting the course of justice / withholding information or will these be dropped when the other three are aquitted?

See I don't know what the actual allegation is. The charge is committing an act likely to pervert the course of justice. Deleting texts could amount to that but deleting texts is not in and of itself a crime. I've yet to read what the evidence is that these texts were relevant to the alleged crime and/or they were deleted after he became aware or ought to have been aware that the texts may form evidence. I literally have no clue what the allegation against Harrison is either because I've missed it in reports or because it hasn't been reported.

Telling lads to leave their phones at home when going to police is probably part of it. After getting the text about it being non-consensual the prosecution maintain he was the one that got them together to straighten out their stories.

Maybe they don't have enough evidence to convict but put him up to try and get him to crack and rat the boys out?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 14, 2018, 09:38:25 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 11:30:56 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on March 13, 2018, 09:55:50 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 09:49:20 PM
What exactly is the allegation against Harrison I've yet to read what it is. Simply deleting messages without more is not a crime.

is he not charged with perverting the course of justice / withholding information or will these be dropped when the other three are aquitted?

See I don't know what the actual allegation is. The charge is committing an act likely to pervert the course of justice. Deleting texts could amount to that but deleting texts is not in and of itself a crime. I've yet to read what the evidence is that these texts were relevant to the alleged crime and/or they were deleted after he became aware or ought to have been aware that the texts may form evidence. I literally have no clue what the allegation against Harrison is either because I've missed it in reports or because it hasn't been reported.

I'd need to check this but I think the PSNI didn't actually take Harrison's phone until October 2016.  I think when he was asked to attend for interview he didn't bring his phone with him (not a crime in itself) but it was then that the cops found out about the deleted text messages and also that he had carried out some sort of factory setting reset on his phone in August (at least that's the allegation?).  He claims his phone had some sort of meltdown.  He didn't tell police about the "not consensual" text from the girl nor the texts and phone calls with McIlroy and I think he gave as little away as possible in his interviews ("Dad will know what to say").  But I agree there's been little detail of the case against Harrison, I suppose the media are concentrating on Jackson and Olding.

Harrison has been incredibly stupid here, but that's not a crime (if it was, I'd have spent large chunks of my life in clink :P)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 14, 2018, 10:41:39 AM
PPS are using the combined trial of all four to paint a picture of a crime being committed by two, another attempting to join in and a fourth attempting to cover up in conjunction with others.

Harrison, if tried on his own, would walk because he was ambushed by PSNI not telling him he was being treated as other than a witness.  Prosecution tried to show he was holding back when interviewed by PSNI but he simply retorted that he didn't tell because he wasn't asked and his phone wasn't asked for. The others said much less but they had their solicitors running the show for them.  No responsibility on Harrison to tell all to PSNI.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 14, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 14, 2018, 09:38:25 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 11:30:56 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on March 13, 2018, 09:55:50 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 09:49:20 PM
What exactly is the allegation against Harrison I've yet to read what it is. Simply deleting messages without more is not a crime.

is he not charged with perverting the course of justice / withholding information or will these be dropped when the other three are aquitted?

See I don't know what the actual allegation is. The charge is committing an act likely to pervert the course of justice. Deleting texts could amount to that but deleting texts is not in and of itself a crime. I've yet to read what the evidence is that these texts were relevant to the alleged crime and/or they were deleted after he became aware or ought to have been aware that the texts may form evidence. I literally have no clue what the allegation against Harrison is either because I've missed it in reports or because it hasn't been reported.

I'd need to check this but I think the PSNI didn't actually take Harrison's phone until October 2016.  I think when he was asked to attend for interview he didn't bring his phone with him (not a crime in itself) but it was then that the cops found out about the deleted text messages and also that he had carried out some sort of factory setting reset on his phone in August (at least that's the allegation?).  He claims his phone had some sort of meltdown.  He didn't tell police about the "not consensual" text from the girl nor the texts and phone calls with McIlroy and I think he gave as little away as possible in his interviews ("Dad will know what to say").  But I agree there's been little detail of the case against Harrison, I suppose the media are concentrating on Jackson and Olding.

Harrison has been incredibly stupid here, but that's not a crime (if it was, I'd have spent large chunks of my life in clink :P)

You've covered up for people you were told were rapists? You have a very generous reading of what Harrison did and his maliciousness, to put it mildly.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 14, 2018, 11:19:02 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 14, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 14, 2018, 09:38:25 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 11:30:56 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on March 13, 2018, 09:55:50 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 09:49:20 PM
What exactly is the allegation against Harrison I've yet to read what it is. Simply deleting messages without more is not a crime.

is he not charged with perverting the course of justice / withholding information or will these be dropped when the other three are aquitted?

See I don't know what the actual allegation is. The charge is committing an act likely to pervert the course of justice. Deleting texts could amount to that but deleting texts is not in and of itself a crime. I've yet to read what the evidence is that these texts were relevant to the alleged crime and/or they were deleted after he became aware or ought to have been aware that the texts may form evidence. I literally have no clue what the allegation against Harrison is either because I've missed it in reports or because it hasn't been reported.

I'd need to check this but I think the PSNI didn't actually take Harrison's phone until October 2016.  I think when he was asked to attend for interview he didn't bring his phone with him (not a crime in itself) but it was then that the cops found out about the deleted text messages and also that he had carried out some sort of factory setting reset on his phone in August (at least that's the allegation?).  He claims his phone had some sort of meltdown.  He didn't tell police about the "not consensual" text from the girl nor the texts and phone calls with McIlroy and I think he gave as little away as possible in his interviews ("Dad will know what to say").  But I agree there's been little detail of the case against Harrison, I suppose the media are concentrating on Jackson and Olding.

Harrison has been incredibly stupid here, but that's not a crime (if it was, I'd have spent large chunks of my life in clink :P)

You've covered up for people you were told were rapists? You have a very generous reading of what Harrison did and his maliciousness, to put it mildly.

Yes I totaly seen that in his post Syferus!!!

You see things in peoples posts which are not there and then berate them as if they are criminals! what a plonker
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 14, 2018, 11:46:19 AM
Prosecution closing statement delayed for some reason.

Maybe Toby Hedworth QC caught reading the GAA Board looking for advice ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 14, 2018, 11:51:15 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 14, 2018, 11:46:19 AM
Prosecution closing statement delayed for some reason.

Maybe Toby Hedworth QC caught reading the GAA Board looking for advice ;)

Waiting for Syferus to provide him with further Advice on Proofs!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 14, 2018, 12:02:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 14, 2018, 11:19:02 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 14, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 14, 2018, 09:38:25 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 11:30:56 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on March 13, 2018, 09:55:50 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 09:49:20 PM
What exactly is the allegation against Harrison I've yet to read what it is. Simply deleting messages without more is not a crime.

is he not charged with perverting the course of justice / withholding information or will these be dropped when the other three are aquitted?

See I don't know what the actual allegation is. The charge is committing an act likely to pervert the course of justice. Deleting texts could amount to that but deleting texts is not in and of itself a crime. I've yet to read what the evidence is that these texts were relevant to the alleged crime and/or they were deleted after he became aware or ought to have been aware that the texts may form evidence. I literally have no clue what the allegation against Harrison is either because I've missed it in reports or because it hasn't been reported.

I'd need to check this but I think the PSNI didn't actually take Harrison's phone until October 2016.  I think when he was asked to attend for interview he didn't bring his phone with him (not a crime in itself) but it was then that the cops found out about the deleted text messages and also that he had carried out some sort of factory setting reset on his phone in August (at least that's the allegation?).  He claims his phone had some sort of meltdown.  He didn't tell police about the "not consensual" text from the girl nor the texts and phone calls with McIlroy and I think he gave as little away as possible in his interviews ("Dad will know what to say").  But I agree there's been little detail of the case against Harrison, I suppose the media are concentrating on Jackson and Olding.

Harrison has been incredibly stupid here, but that's not a crime (if it was, I'd have spent large chunks of my life in clink :P)

You've covered up for people you were told were rapists? You have a very generous reading of what Harrison did and his maliciousness, to put it mildly.

Yes I totaly seen that in his post Syferus!!!

You see things in peoples posts which are not there and then berate them as if they are criminals! what a plonker

your safer putting thon clown on Ignore list
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 14, 2018, 12:09:21 PM
Jury sent home.  Back tomorrow morning
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 14, 2018, 12:12:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 14, 2018, 12:09:21 PM
Jury sent home.  Back tomorrow morning

Is that strange? do they have to run their statements past the judge first ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 14, 2018, 12:32:33 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 14, 2018, 12:12:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 14, 2018, 12:09:21 PM
Jury sent home.  Back tomorrow morning

Is that strange? do they have to run their statements past the judge first ?
Haven't a clue what's going on MR2.  More legal argument maybe??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 14, 2018, 01:43:55 PM
According to Frank Greaney, a legal issue has arisen.  This will have to be resolved by the judge before proceeding. Every one of these resolutions, there have been quite a few, will be examined later by defence as reasons for an appeal should their clients be found guilty.  Must be serious enough at this stage to suspend proceedings in a trial already running behind schedule.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 14, 2018, 07:29:08 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 14, 2018, 12:12:30 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 14, 2018, 12:09:21 PM
Jury sent home.  Back tomorrow morning

Is that strange? do they have to run their statements past the judge first ?

No statements don't have to be run past the judge first. I'd be surprised if Harrison was tried simply as a tactic to try and crack the other boys. Hard to get past misjoinder or severance applications if that were the case. I can't help but feel there's probably that crucial bit i haven't read or hasn't been reported yet.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: orangeman on March 15, 2018, 11:11:45 AM
6 weeks or more of wading through evidence and legal argument, not to mention months of prepraring for the trial by numerous firms of solicitors and barristers mean that the costs bill is going to be a hefty one. Out of curiosity who is picking up the tab in the event of a win or a loss ?. Just asking.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 15, 2018, 11:35:36 AM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2018, 11:11:45 AM
6 weeks or more of wading through evidence and legal argument, not to mention months of prepraring for the trial by numerous firms of solicitors and barristers mean that the costs bill is going to be a hefty one. Out of curiosity who is picking up the tab in the event of a win or a loss ?. Just asking.
"just asking" Yes you are a gobshite
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 15, 2018, 11:41:41 AM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2018, 11:11:45 AM
6 weeks or more of wading through evidence and legal argument, not to mention months of prepraring for the trial by numerous firms of solicitors and barristers mean that the costs bill is going to be a hefty one. Out of curiosity who is picking up the tab in the event of a win or a loss ?. Just asking.

Depending on whether some of the defendants have managed to get legal aid, wouldn't think Jackson and Olding would get it, they are responsible for their own legal costs for barristers and solicitors each running into tens of thousands. 4 barristers and 4 solicitors will lift a tidy sum for 6 weeks in court and all the time spent from arrest to court case beginning.

Cost of prosecution falls on the tax payer but if found guilty there is a nominal payment by defendants towards court costs.

Overall it has been an expensive trial. That doesn't include the cost of the jurors being out of their work for the whole time.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 12:02:39 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 15, 2018, 11:41:41 AM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2018, 11:11:45 AM
6 weeks or more of wading through evidence and legal argument, not to mention months of prepraring for the trial by numerous firms of solicitors and barristers mean that the costs bill is going to be a hefty one. Out of curiosity who is picking up the tab in the event of a win or a loss ?. Just asking.

Depending on whether some of the defendants have managed to get legal aid, wouldn't think Jackson and Olding would get it, they are responsible for their own legal costs for barristers and solicitors each running into tens of thousands. 4 barristers and 4 solicitors will lift a tidy sum for 6 weeks in court and all the time spent from arrest to court case beginning.

Cost of prosecution falls on the tax payer but if found guilty there is a nominal payment by defendants towards court costs.

Overall it has been an expensive trial. That doesn't include the cost of the jurors being out of their work for the whole time.

If Paddy Jackson has been suspended from his employers (I'm assuming) would he not be entitled to legal aid? Is it also common to bring prosecution barristers over from England?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 15, 2018, 12:17:18 PM
Greaney's upped his game for the closing statements he's way more detailed and up to date than Cooney today!

Not much new or surprising coming from the prosecution closing statement. Do all 4 defending barristers give a closing statement?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 12:26:47 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 15, 2018, 12:17:18 PM
Greaney's upped his game for the closing statements he's way more detailed and up to date than Cooney today!

Not much new or surprising coming from the prosecution closing statement. Do all 4 defending barristers give a closing statement?

No only Paddy Jackson's as he is the main star of the show and whatever happens to him will have a huge bearing on how much news the other 3 get.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 15, 2018, 12:32:31 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 12:02:39 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 15, 2018, 11:41:41 AM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2018, 11:11:45 AM
6 weeks or more of wading through evidence and legal argument, not to mention months of prepraring for the trial by numerous firms of solicitors and barristers mean that the costs bill is going to be a hefty one. Out of curiosity who is picking up the tab in the event of a win or a loss ?. Just asking.

Depending on whether some of the defendants have managed to get legal aid, wouldn't think Jackson and Olding would get it, they are responsible for their own legal costs for barristers and solicitors each running into tens of thousands. 4 barristers and 4 solicitors will lift a tidy sum for 6 weeks in court and all the time spent from arrest to court case beginning.

Cost of prosecution falls on the tax payer but if found guilty there is a nominal payment by defendants towards court costs.

Overall it has been an expensive trial. That doesn't include the cost of the jurors being out of their work for the whole time.

If Paddy Jackson has been suspended from his employers (I'm assuming) would he not be entitled to legal aid? Is it also common to bring prosecution barristers over from England?
Same as an English barrister taking a brief in Glasgow or Cardiff.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 15, 2018, 12:34:46 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 15, 2018, 12:17:18 PM
Greaney's upped his game for the closing statements he's way more detailed and up to date than Cooney today!

Not much new or surprising coming from the prosecution closing statement. Do all 4 defending barristers give a closing statement?
Yes. This is not a united defence. Each barrister is employed to defend his client. If that means throwing someone else under a bus to save his client so be it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 12:36:12 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 15, 2018, 12:32:31 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 12:02:39 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 15, 2018, 11:41:41 AM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2018, 11:11:45 AM
6 weeks or more of wading through evidence and legal argument, not to mention months of prepraring for the trial by numerous firms of solicitors and barristers mean that the costs bill is going to be a hefty one. Out of curiosity who is picking up the tab in the event of a win or a loss ?. Just asking.

Depending on whether some of the defendants have managed to get legal aid, wouldn't think Jackson and Olding would get it, they are responsible for their own legal costs for barristers and solicitors each running into tens of thousands. 4 barristers and 4 solicitors will lift a tidy sum for 6 weeks in court and all the time spent from arrest to court case beginning.

Cost of prosecution falls on the tax payer but if found guilty there is a nominal payment by defendants towards court costs.

Overall it has been an expensive trial. That doesn't include the cost of the jurors being out of their work for the whole time.

If Paddy Jackson has been suspended from his employers (I'm assuming) would he not be entitled to legal aid? Is it also common to bring prosecution barristers over from England?
Same as an English barrister taking a brief in Glasgow or Cardiff.

And given the small amount of QCs here there would be a risk that given the background of the defendants there may be a level of bias so it was wise to look outside the immediate jurisdiction
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 15, 2018, 12:36:47 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 12:02:39 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 15, 2018, 11:41:41 AM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2018, 11:11:45 AM
6 weeks or more of wading through evidence and legal argument, not to mention months of prepraring for the trial by numerous firms of solicitors and barristers mean that the costs bill is going to be a hefty one. Out of curiosity who is picking up the tab in the event of a win or a loss ?. Just asking.

Depending on whether some of the defendants have managed to get legal aid, wouldn't think Jackson and Olding would get it, they are responsible for their own legal costs for barristers and solicitors each running into tens of thousands. 4 barristers and 4 solicitors will lift a tidy sum for 6 weeks in court and all the time spent from arrest to court case beginning.

Cost of prosecution falls on the tax payer but if found guilty there is a nominal payment by defendants towards court costs.

Overall it has been an expensive trial. That doesn't include the cost of the jurors being out of their work for the whole time.

If Paddy Jackson has been suspended from his employers (I'm assuming) would he not be entitled to legal aid? Is it also common to bring prosecution barristers over from England?

I heard he was on half pay
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: passedit on March 15, 2018, 12:37:46 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 15, 2018, 12:32:31 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 12:02:39 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 15, 2018, 11:41:41 AM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2018, 11:11:45 AM
6 weeks or more of wading through evidence and legal argument, not to mention months of prepraring for the trial by numerous firms of solicitors and barristers mean that the costs bill is going to be a hefty one. Out of curiosity who is picking up the tab in the event of a win or a loss ?. Just asking.

Depending on whether some of the defendants have managed to get legal aid, wouldn't think Jackson and Olding would get it, they are responsible for their own legal costs for barristers and solicitors each running into tens of thousands. 4 barristers and 4 solicitors will lift a tidy sum for 6 weeks in court and all the time spent from arrest to court case beginning.

Cost of prosecution falls on the tax payer but if found guilty there is a nominal payment by defendants towards court costs.

Overall it has been an expensive trial. That doesn't include the cost of the jurors being out of their work for the whole time.

If Paddy Jackson has been suspended from his employers (I'm assuming) would he not be entitled to legal aid? Is it also common to bring prosecution barristers over from England?
Same as an English barrister taking a brief in Glasgow or Cardiff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc1iipvzr4s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc1iipvzr4s)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on March 15, 2018, 12:38:15 PM
I'd imagine he'd be on full pay. No? He's only accused at this stage.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 12:41:09 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 15, 2018, 12:37:46 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 15, 2018, 12:32:31 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 12:02:39 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 15, 2018, 11:41:41 AM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2018, 11:11:45 AM
6 weeks or more of wading through evidence and legal argument, not to mention months of prepraring for the trial by numerous firms of solicitors and barristers mean that the costs bill is going to be a hefty one. Out of curiosity who is picking up the tab in the event of a win or a loss ?. Just asking.

Depending on whether some of the defendants have managed to get legal aid, wouldn't think Jackson and Olding would get it, they are responsible for their own legal costs for barristers and solicitors each running into tens of thousands. 4 barristers and 4 solicitors will lift a tidy sum for 6 weeks in court and all the time spent from arrest to court case beginning.

Cost of prosecution falls on the tax payer but if found guilty there is a nominal payment by defendants towards court costs.

Overall it has been an expensive trial. That doesn't include the cost of the jurors being out of their work for the whole time.

If Paddy Jackson has been suspended from his employers (I'm assuming) would he not be entitled to legal aid? Is it also common to bring prosecution barristers over from England?
Same as an English barrister taking a brief in Glasgow or Cardiff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc1iipvzr4s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc1iipvzr4s)

Brilliant!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 15, 2018, 12:49:24 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 15, 2018, 11:41:41 AM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2018, 11:11:45 AM
6 weeks or more of wading through evidence and legal argument, not to mention months of prepraring for the trial by numerous firms of solicitors and barristers mean that the costs bill is going to be a hefty one. Out of curiosity who is picking up the tab in the event of a win or a loss ?. Just asking.

Depending on whether some of the defendants have managed to get legal aid, wouldn't think Jackson and Olding would get it, they are responsible for their own legal costs for barristers and solicitors each running into tens of thousands. 4 barristers and 4 solicitors will lift a tidy sum for 6 weeks in court and all the time spent from arrest to court case beginning.

Cost of prosecution falls on the tax payer but if found guilty there is a nominal payment by defendants towards court costs.

Overall it has been an expensive trial. That doesn't include the cost of the jurors being out of their work for the whole time.

More likely 8 barristers. Senior and Junior for each defendant. Also costs against defendants are practically unheard of in Northern Ireland. As are costs for successful defendants.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 15, 2018, 12:51:15 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 12:26:47 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 15, 2018, 12:17:18 PM
Greaney's upped his game for the closing statements he's way more detailed and up to date than Cooney today!

Not much new or surprising coming from the prosecution closing statement. Do all 4 defending barristers give a closing statement?

No only Paddy Jackson's as he is the main star of the show and whatever happens to him will have a huge bearing on how much news the other 3 get.

Yeah all defence seniors will likely do a closing. Starting with Jacksons ending with Harrisons.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 01:01:45 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 15, 2018, 12:32:31 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 12:02:39 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 15, 2018, 11:41:41 AM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2018, 11:11:45 AM
6 weeks or more of wading through evidence and legal argument, not to mention months of prepraring for the trial by numerous firms of solicitors and barristers mean that the costs bill is going to be a hefty one. Out of curiosity who is picking up the tab in the event of a win or a loss ?. Just asking.

Depending on whether some of the defendants have managed to get legal aid, wouldn't think Jackson and Olding would get it, they are responsible for their own legal costs for barristers and solicitors each running into tens of thousands. 4 barristers and 4 solicitors will lift a tidy sum for 6 weeks in court and all the time spent from arrest to court case beginning.

Cost of prosecution falls on the tax payer but if found guilty there is a nominal payment by defendants towards court costs.

Overall it has been an expensive trial. That doesn't include the cost of the jurors being out of their work for the whole time.

If Paddy Jackson has been suspended from his employers (I'm assuming) would he not be entitled to legal aid? Is it also common to bring prosecution barristers over from England?
Same as an English barrister taking a brief in Glasgow or Cardiff.

Flights and hotels add on that wee bit more, but hey, youre not paying for it so
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 15, 2018, 01:07:44 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 15, 2018, 12:51:15 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 12:26:47 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 15, 2018, 12:17:18 PM
Greaney's upped his game for the closing statements he's way more detailed and up to date than Cooney today!

Not much new or surprising coming from the prosecution closing statement. Do all 4 defending barristers give a closing statement?

No only Paddy Jackson's as he is the main star of the show and whatever happens to him will have a huge bearing on how much news the other 3 get.

Yeah all defence seniors will likely do a closing. Starting with Jacksons ending with Harrisons.

Hedworth has finished (I though it would take longer??).  Lunch and then Jackson's barrister will close.  Looks like closing will be over tomorrow and then it's back next Wed for the judge.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 15, 2018, 01:09:05 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 15, 2018, 12:51:15 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 12:26:47 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 15, 2018, 12:17:18 PM
Greaney's upped his game for the closing statements he's way more detailed and up to date than Cooney today!

Not much new or surprising coming from the prosecution closing statement. Do all 4 defending barristers give a closing statement?

No only Paddy Jackson's as he is the main star of the show and whatever happens to him will have a huge bearing on how much news the other 3 get.

Yeah all defence seniors will likely do a closing. Starting with Jacksons ending with Harrisons.

It's shite work, but somebody's got to do it!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 01:10:33 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 15, 2018, 01:07:44 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 15, 2018, 12:51:15 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 12:26:47 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 15, 2018, 12:17:18 PM
Greaney's upped his game for the closing statements he's way more detailed and up to date than Cooney today!

Not much new or surprising coming from the prosecution closing statement. Do all 4 defending barristers give a closing statement?

No only Paddy Jackson's as he is the main star of the show and whatever happens to him will have a huge bearing on how much news the other 3 get.

Yeah all defence seniors will likely do a closing. Starting with Jacksons ending with Harrisons.

Hedworth has finished (I though it would take longer??).  Lunch and then Jackson's barrister will close.  Looks like closing will be over tomorrow and then it's back next Wed for the judge.

Squeaky bum time for all involved.

Would not want to be on that jury! I've changed my mind a few times now
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 15, 2018, 01:33:15 PM
And if convicted there could be a civil action for damages by the victim. Bye bye house in South Belfast
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on March 15, 2018, 02:07:16 PM
Reading reports of Mr Hedworth's closing.  It seemed like a very strong argument.

Knowing only what I know now* if I was on the jury I'd be going with guilty.

*i.e. only what's been reported in the press
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on March 15, 2018, 02:25:25 PM
Is there likely to be any collaboration between the accused defence teams when giving closing arguments?  Would it be of any benefit to the defendants to do this to try and strengthen their individual defences? Or would it be a case of every man for himself?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 15, 2018, 02:30:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 15, 2018, 02:25:25 PM
Is there likely to be any collaboration between the accused defence teams when giving closing arguments?  Would it be of any benefit to the defendants to do this to try and strengthen their individual defences? Or would it be a case of every man for himself?

Hard to colllude effectively after failing so badly to do it in the trial. Their stories all contradict each others'.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 15, 2018, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 15, 2018, 02:07:16 PM
Reading reports of Mr Hedworth's closing.  It seemed like a very strong argument.

Knowing only what I know now* if I was on the jury I'd be going with guilty.

*i.e. only what's been reported in the press
He put the evidence of the witness in its proper context. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 15, 2018, 04:09:20 PM
Jury sent home.  Kelly about halfway through his closing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 15, 2018, 04:17:48 PM
Is that the defence completely finished or can he speak again?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 15, 2018, 04:40:10 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 15, 2018, 04:17:48 PM
Is that the defence completely finished or can he speak again?

No, he's back in the morning to complete his closing.  This is only Paddy Jackson's defence.  The others will have a go tomorrow too.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 15, 2018, 04:44:24 PM
@FrankGreaney

Mr. Kelly QC tells jurors: "You decide where the truth lies. Consistencies are the hallmark of truth. Liars deviate".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 04:47:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 15, 2018, 04:44:24 PM
@FrankGreaney

Mr. Kelly QC tells jurors: "You decide where the truth lies. Consistencies are the hallmark of truth. Liars deviate".

What if you lie consistently?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 15, 2018, 05:03:43 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 15, 2018, 04:40:10 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 15, 2018, 04:17:48 PM
Is that the defence completely finished or can he speak again?

No, he's back in the morning to complete his closing.  This is only Paddy Jackson's defence.  The others will have a go tomorrow too.

From Greaney:

Brendan Kelly QC has completed six of the fifteen chapters of his closing address and will resume at 10am tomorrow.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 15, 2018, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 04:47:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 15, 2018, 04:44:24 PM
@FrankGreaney

Mr. Kelly QC tells jurors: "You decide where the truth lies. Consistencies are the hallmark of truth. Liars deviate".

What if you lie consistently?

I take it he was referring the the complainant there, but it could apply to the defendants as well!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 15, 2018, 05:12:12 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 15, 2018, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 04:47:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 15, 2018, 04:44:24 PM
@FrankGreaney

Mr. Kelly QC tells jurors: "You decide where the truth lies. Consistencies are the hallmark of truth. Liars deviate".

What if you lie consistently?

I take it he was referring the the complainant there, but it could apply to the defendants as well!

It mostly applies to the defendants. If the jury have been listening to their stories carefully that line will have went over like a lead balloon.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 15, 2018, 05:18:46 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 15, 2018, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 04:47:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 15, 2018, 04:44:24 PM
@FrankGreaney

Mr. Kelly QC tells jurors: "You decide where the truth lies. Consistencies are the hallmark of truth. Liars deviate".

What if you lie consistently?

I assume the context of this soundbite was after some discussion of the complainant given nf different versions of what happened to the doctor, her friend, police and in the witness box whereas the guys gave the same account to police and in the box?  Very odd comment if not.

I take it he was referring the the complainant there, but it could apply to the defendants as well!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 05:32:41 PM
A friend was in for the speeches today. Said the speech by prosecution was outstanding and closed an awful lot of holes but she still thinks it's looking like a not guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 15, 2018, 06:37:39 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 05:32:41 PM
A friend was in for the speeches today. Said the speech by prosecution was outstanding and closed an awful lot of holes but she still thinks it's looking like a not guilty.

Well no need to take any heed of what she said..it's clear she  is a rape apologist.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 06:39:00 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 15, 2018, 06:37:39 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 05:32:41 PM
A friend was in for the speeches today. Said the speech by prosecution was outstanding and closed an awful lot of holes but she still thinks it's looking like a not guilty.

Well no need to take any heed of what she said..it's clear she  is a rape apologist.

Funny thing is she's a prosecutor!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 06:49:39 PM
My brother in law says the jury would have made their mind up before this, generally never change
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 06:59:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 06:49:39 PM
My brother in law says the jury would have made their mind up before this, generally never change

Juries are funny things. I would agree with you most times but this isn't a normal trial. I'd say 7-8 of them have but there's stills a bit of  waivering.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2018, 07:12:17 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 06:59:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 06:49:39 PM
My brother in law says the jury would have made their mind up before this, generally never change

Juries are funny things. I would agree with you most times but this isn't a normal trial. I'd say 7-8 of them have but there's stills a bit of  waivering.
Remind me again how the scores work. To get sent down does it just require a majority verdict of whatever number of jurors are left?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 07:44:39 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2018, 07:12:17 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 06:59:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 06:49:39 PM
My brother in law says the jury would have made their mind up before this, generally never change

Juries are funny things. I would agree with you most times but this isn't a normal trial. I'd say 7-8 of them have but there's stills a bit of  waivering.
Remind me again how the scores work. To get sent down does it just require a majority verdict of whatever number of jurors are left?

Normally unanimous but it can be a majority verdict if, as would be the case in this one, 10 was the majority. I'm not 100% on that so don't hold me to it!!! I'm only a litigator these days!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Look-Up! on March 15, 2018, 08:02:11 PM
Was very much on the fence with this trial before the lads testimony. It looked like a case of he said she said but their stories just don't add up. Also while I had been reading the newspaper reports I'll admit I hadn't been following religiously. But just read this today for the first time which is a transcript of texts between the girl and her mate the morning after. It's from the mirror and a month old. I also cannot find the transcript being carried anywhere else by another news site but it's very disturbing reading and ties in with a lot of the other evidence and texts and has certainly got me leaning towards believing the girl.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/rugby-rape-trial-paddy-jackson-12027425
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 15, 2018, 08:12:24 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 07:44:39 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2018, 07:12:17 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 06:59:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 06:49:39 PM
My brother in law says the jury would have made their mind up before this, generally never change

Juries are funny things. I would agree with you most times but this isn't a normal trial. I'd say 7-8 of them have but there's stills a bit of  waivering.
Remind me again how the scores work. To get sent down does it just require a majority verdict of whatever number of jurors are left?

Normally unanimous but it can be a majority verdict if, as would be the case in this one, 10 was the majority. I'm not 100% on that so don't hold me to it!!! I'm only a litigator these days!!!

Initially a unanimous verdict will be required. If that's not possible after a few hours of deliberations the jury will be called back in and told a majority verdict will be accepted.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 08:16:09 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 15, 2018, 08:12:24 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 07:44:39 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2018, 07:12:17 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 06:59:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 06:49:39 PM
My brother in law says the jury would have made their mind up before this, generally never change

Juries are funny things. I would agree with you most times but this isn't a normal trial. I'd say 7-8 of them have but there's stills a bit of  waivering.
Remind me again how the scores work. To get sent down does it just require a majority verdict of whatever number of jurors are left?

Normally unanimous but it can be a majority verdict if, as would be the case in this one, 10 was the majority. I'm not 100% on that so don't hold me to it!!! I'm only a litigator these days!!!

Initially a unanimous verdict will be required. If that's not possible after a few hours of deliberations the jury will be called back in and told a majority verdict will be accepted.

That's what I thought.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Well it's not going to be unanimous that's for sure.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 08:56:34 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Well it's not going to be unanimous that's for sure.

And to be a majority it has to be 10 out of 11 so I'm not sure if they'll get that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2018, 08:57:20 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 08:56:34 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Well it's not going to be unanimous that's for sure.

And to be a majority it has to be 10 out of 11 so I'm not sure if they'll get that.
Nope. Would be very surprised.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: CiKe on March 15, 2018, 09:02:17 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 15, 2018, 08:02:11 PM
Was very much on the fence with this trial before the lads testimony. It looked like a case of he said she said but their stories just don't add up. Also while I had been reading the newspaper reports I'll admit I hadn't been following religiously. But just read this today for the first time which is a transcript of texts between the girl and her mate the morning after. It's from the mirror and a month old. I also cannot find the transcript being carried anywhere else by another news site but it's very disturbing reading and ties in with a lot of the other evidence and texts and has certainly got me leaning towards believing the girl.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/rugby-rape-trial-paddy-jackson-12027425

Christ hadn't seen that either.

Must say when I heard Jackson say something about the girl running her nails down his arm downstairs, it sounded a hell of a lot like he had marks on him that could well have come from her trying to fight him off, and that he was trying to explain away. I didn't see these mentioned anywhere or prosecution follow up on this, but maybe just missed it.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: CiKe on March 15, 2018, 09:05:20 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 08:56:34 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Well it's not going to be unanimous that's for sure.

And to be a majority it has to be 10 out of 11 so I'm not sure if they'll get that.

I'm sure you're right, but an interesting definition of majority...do you have the legal definition?

Not sure they will get 10 either but after reading the lads evidence (or tweets about their evidence) and that article above - I assume they were taken from somewhere and not just invented by the Mirror - leaning ever more towards guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 09:08:56 PM
Quote from: CiKe on March 15, 2018, 09:05:20 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 08:56:34 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Well it's not going to be unanimous that's for sure.

And to be a majority it has to be 10 out of 11 so I'm not sure if they'll get that.

I'm sure you're right, but an interesting definition of majority...do you have the legal definition?

Not sure they will get 10 either but after reading the lads evidence (or tweets about their evidence) and that article above - I assume they were taken from somewhere and not just invented by the Mirror - leaning ever more towards guilty.

Minimum 10
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: CiKe on March 15, 2018, 09:17:28 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 09:08:56 PM
Quote from: CiKe on March 15, 2018, 09:05:20 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 15, 2018, 08:56:34 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
Well it's not going to be unanimous that's for sure.

And to be a majority it has to be 10 out of 11 so I'm not sure if they'll get that.

I'm sure you're right, but an interesting definition of majority...do you have the legal definition?

Not sure they will get 10 either but after reading the lads evidence (or tweets about their evidence) and that article above - I assume they were taken from somewhere and not just invented by the Mirror - leaning ever more towards guilty.

Minimum 10

Ta
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 15, 2018, 09:34:19 PM
Quote from: CiKe on March 15, 2018, 09:02:17 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 15, 2018, 08:02:11 PM
Was very much on the fence with this trial before the lads testimony. It looked like a case of he said she said but their stories just don't add up. Also while I had been reading the newspaper reports I'll admit I hadn't been following religiously. But just read this today for the first time which is a transcript of texts between the girl and her mate the morning after. It's from the mirror and a month old. I also cannot find the transcript being carried anywhere else by another news site but it's very disturbing reading and ties in with a lot of the other evidence and texts and has certainly got me leaning towards believing the girl.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/rugby-rape-trial-paddy-jackson-12027425

Christ hadn't seen that either.

Must say when I heard Jackson say something about the girl running her nails down his arm downstairs, it sounded a hell of a lot like he had marks on him that could well have come from her trying to fight him off, and that he was trying to explain away. I didn't see these mentioned anywhere or prosecution follow up on this, but maybe just missed it.
There should have been marks on Jackson if she was scratching him. None were reported. It's actually inconsistent with her evidence about complying and doesn't add up with her ignoring the other girl who walked in on them.

Funnily enough she didn't mention that girl in any of her messages.

Reading the prosecution's closing statement just sounded like more of the same that we've heard from some on this thread. Why would she put herself through all this etc. Nothing new in it from what I could see, maybe you had to be there.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 15, 2018, 09:35:35 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 15, 2018, 08:02:11 PM
Was very much on the fence with this trial before the lads testimony. It looked like a case of he said she said but their stories just don't add up. Also while I had been reading the newspaper reports I'll admit I hadn't been following religiously. But just read this today for the first time which is a transcript of texts between the girl and her mate the morning after. It's from the mirror and a month old. I also cannot find the transcript being carried anywhere else by another news site but it's very disturbing reading and ties in with a lot of the other evidence and texts and has certainly got me leaning towards believing the girl.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/rugby-rape-trial-paddy-jackson-12027425

This is an even more complete record of all the text messages that happened.

Both involving the complainant and the defendants.


https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 15, 2018, 09:41:09 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 15, 2018, 09:34:19 PM
Quote from: CiKe on March 15, 2018, 09:02:17 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 15, 2018, 08:02:11 PM
Was very much on the fence with this trial before the lads testimony. It looked like a case of he said she said but their stories just don't add up. Also while I had been reading the newspaper reports I'll admit I hadn't been following religiously. But just read this today for the first time which is a transcript of texts between the girl and her mate the morning after. It's from the mirror and a month old. I also cannot find the transcript being carried anywhere else by another news site but it's very disturbing reading and ties in with a lot of the other evidence and texts and has certainly got me leaning towards believing the girl.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/rugby-rape-trial-paddy-jackson-12027425

Christ hadn't seen that either.

Must say when I heard Jackson say something about the girl running her nails down his arm downstairs, it sounded a hell of a lot like he had marks on him that could well have come from her trying to fight him off, and that he was trying to explain away. I didn't see these mentioned anywhere or prosecution follow up on this, but maybe just missed it.
There should have been marks on Jackson if she was scratching him. None were reported. It's actually inconsistent with her evidence about complying and doesn't add up with her ignoring the other girl who walked in on them.

Funnily enough she didn't mention that girl in any of her messages.

Reading the prosecution's closing statement just sounded like more of the same that we've heard from some on this thread. Why would she put herself through all this etc. Nothing new in it from what I could see, maybe you had to be there.

The complainant mentioned Dara Florence walking in to the police. She doesn't have to have mentioned her in her text messages, they're not official statements, they're text messages to a friend.

The complainant didn't claim to have tried to fight Jackson off.

Even if she did, there's no guarantee that Jackson would have had scratches on him two and a half days later.

Was Jackson even examined physically by police? 

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitey on March 15, 2018, 09:42:50 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 15, 2018, 09:34:19 PM
Quote from: CiKe on March 15, 2018, 09:02:17 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 15, 2018, 08:02:11 PM
Was very much on the fence with this trial before the lads testimony. It looked like a case of he said she said but their stories just don't add up. Also while I had been reading the newspaper reports I'll admit I hadn't been following religiously. But just read this today for the first time which is a transcript of texts between the girl and her mate the morning after. It's from the mirror and a month old. I also cannot find the transcript being carried anywhere else by another news site but it's very disturbing reading and ties in with a lot of the other evidence and texts and has certainly got me leaning towards believing the girl.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/rugby-rape-trial-paddy-jackson-12027425

Christ hadn't seen that either.

Must say when I heard Jackson say something about the girl running her nails down his arm downstairs, it sounded a hell of a lot like he had marks on him that could well have come from her trying to fight him off, and that he was trying to explain away. I didn't see these mentioned anywhere or prosecution follow up on this, but maybe just missed it.
There should have been marks on Jackson if she was scratching him. None were reported. It's actually inconsistent with her evidence about complying and doesn't add up with her ignoring the other girl who walked in on them.

Funnily enough she didn't mention that girl in any of her messages.

Reading the prosecution's closing statement just sounded like more of the same that we've heard from some on this thread. Why would she put herself through all this etc. Nothing new in it from what I could see, maybe you had to be there.


She was throwing up before Olding brought her upstairs, so Im guessing she had a lot of drink on board too.  They are fvckin scumbags for trying it on with a girl whos most likely hammered, but it doesnt make them rapists.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 15, 2018, 09:54:58 PM
Quote from: whitey on March 15, 2018, 09:42:50 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 15, 2018, 09:34:19 PM
Quote from: CiKe on March 15, 2018, 09:02:17 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 15, 2018, 08:02:11 PM
Was very much on the fence with this trial before the lads testimony. It looked like a case of he said she said but their stories just don't add up. Also while I had been reading the newspaper reports I'll admit I hadn't been following religiously. But just read this today for the first time which is a transcript of texts between the girl and her mate the morning after. It's from the mirror and a month old. I also cannot find the transcript being carried anywhere else by another news site but it's very disturbing reading and ties in with a lot of the other evidence and texts and has certainly got me leaning towards believing the girl.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/rugby-rape-trial-paddy-jackson-12027425

Christ hadn't seen that either.

Must say when I heard Jackson say something about the girl running her nails down his arm downstairs, it sounded a hell of a lot like he had marks on him that could well have come from her trying to fight him off, and that he was trying to explain away. I didn't see these mentioned anywhere or prosecution follow up on this, but maybe just missed it.
There should have been marks on Jackson if she was scratching him. None were reported. It's actually inconsistent with her evidence about complying and doesn't add up with her ignoring the other girl who walked in on them.

Funnily enough she didn't mention that girl in any of her messages.

Reading the prosecution's closing statement just sounded like more of the same that we've heard from some on this thread. Why would she put herself through all this etc. Nothing new in it from what I could see, maybe you had to be there.


She was throwing up before Olding brought her upstairs, so Im guessing she had a lot of drink on board too.  They are fvckin scumbags for trying it on with a girl whos most likely hammered, but it doesnt make them rapists.

She wasn't. That was Emily Docherty, another woman at the party.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 15, 2018, 10:21:07 PM
Extra supplies of K.Y. Gel being prepared for Maghaberry
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2018, 10:41:19 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 15, 2018, 10:21:07 PM
Extra supplies of K.Y. Gel being prepared for Maghaberry

From your supply?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 15, 2018, 10:48:38 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 15, 2018, 09:34:19 PM
Quote from: CiKe on March 15, 2018, 09:02:17 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 15, 2018, 08:02:11 PM
Was very much on the fence with this trial before the lads testimony. It looked like a case of he said she said but their stories just don't add up. Also while I had been reading the newspaper reports I'll admit I hadn't been following religiously. But just read this today for the first time which is a transcript of texts between the girl and her mate the morning after. It's from the mirror and a month old. I also cannot find the transcript being carried anywhere else by another news site but it's very disturbing reading and ties in with a lot of the other evidence and texts and has certainly got me leaning towards believing the girl.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/rugby-rape-trial-paddy-jackson-12027425

Christ hadn't seen that either.

Must say when I heard Jackson say something about the girl running her nails down his arm downstairs, it sounded a hell of a lot like he had marks on him that could well have come from her trying to fight him off, and that he was trying to explain away. I didn't see these mentioned anywhere or prosecution follow up on this, but maybe just missed it.
There should have been marks on Jackson if she was scratching him. None were reported. It's actually inconsistent with her evidence about complying and doesn't add up with her ignoring the other girl who walked in on them.

Funnily enough she didn't mention that girl in any of her messages.

Reading the prosecution's closing statement just sounded like more of the same that we've heard from some on this thread. Why would she put herself through all this etc. Nothing new in it from what I could see, maybe you had to be there.

So typical and so pathetic. Keep explaining away rape. Most here have seen through your guise of impartiality at this stage.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 15, 2018, 11:17:20 PM
I wouldn't claim to be impartial at this point as it looks to me like a case of regret not rape and I hope they are cleared.

Taking your own top off, ignoring a girl that walks into the room while giving head to a lad with his hands at his side is just too modern a version of rape for me to get my caveman brain round.

I'd like to think I was impartial at the start.

You might not believe that but that's grand. If they're found guilty I won't lose any sleep over them either.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rossfan on March 16, 2018, 12:13:30 AM
Avoided this thread as much as I could  but I wonder do the Jury have to consult Syfīn before reaching a conclusion?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 16, 2018, 06:37:32 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 16, 2018, 12:13:30 AM
Avoided this thread as much as I could  but I wonder do the Jury have to consult Syfīn before reaching a conclusion?
They can make their own mind up. They're not Shinner T.D.s
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent 

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 09:18:03 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 15, 2018, 11:17:20 PM
I wouldn't claim to be impartial at this point as it looks to me like a case of regret not rape and I hope they are cleared.

Why are you not impartial?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on March 16, 2018, 09:20:41 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

Allegedly CCT footage from Ollies shows her talking to a doctor most of the night, not any of the NI team or Jackson and Co.

No previous,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmm
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 09:21:33 AM
I'm intrigued by the number of people who point to the fact that the complainant removed her own top means that she consented to what she says happened next.

Things have certainly changed since my heyday. ???
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 09:25:04 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 16, 2018, 09:20:41 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

Allegedly CCT footage from Ollies shows her talking to a doctor most of the night, not any of the NI team or Jackson and Co.

No previous,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmm

What was the gist of one of McIlroy's messages "Pumped a bird with Jacko on Monday night.  Roasted her.  Then another on Tuesday night"  Maybe no previous, more of a "subsequent"??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:29:48 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 09:25:04 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 16, 2018, 09:20:41 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

Allegedly CCT footage from Ollies shows her talking to a doctor most of the night, not any of the NI team or Jackson and Co.

No previous,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmm

What was the gist of one of McIlroy's messages "Pumped a bird with Jacko on Monday night.  Roasted her.  Then another on Tuesday night"  Maybe no previous, more of a "subsequent"??

Have you only had sex with the one girl?  Any of these girls come forward and say they were raped? Previous means no other convictions of lets say rape or sexual assualt or any crimes for that manner which would give a hint of a persons profile..

As for Ollies there has been talk that she tried it with the NI soccer lads and that didnt happen and she moved onto the rugby lads, she didnt just appear at their house, she must have made some advances to them surely?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 09:37:26 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:29:48 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 09:25:04 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 16, 2018, 09:20:41 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

Allegedly CCT footage from Ollies shows her talking to a doctor most of the night, not any of the NI team or Jackson and Co.

No previous,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmm

What was the gist of one of McIlroy's messages "Pumped a bird with Jacko on Monday night.  Roasted her.  Then another on Tuesday night"  Maybe no previous, more of a "subsequent"??

Have you only had sex with the one girl?  Any of these girls come forward and say they were raped? Previous means no other convictions of lets say rape or sexual assualt or any crimes for that manner which would give a hint of a persons profile..

As for Ollies there has been talk that she tried it with the NI soccer lads and that didnt happen and she moved onto the rugby lads, she didnt just appear at their house, she must have made some advances to them surely?

It's interesting how you move from fact i.e. no previous convictions, to hearsay i.e. there has been talk, in almost the same breath.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on March 16, 2018, 09:39:37 AM
The one question we haven't got an answer to, is why did this girl leave her friends and go back to Jackson's house with 3 other girls she vaguely knew. What was she doing there?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 16, 2018, 09:39:49 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:29:48 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 09:25:04 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 16, 2018, 09:20:41 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

Allegedly CCT footage from Ollies shows her talking to a doctor most of the night, not any of the NI team or Jackson and Co.

No previous,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmm

What was the gist of one of McIlroy's messages "Pumped a bird with Jacko on Monday night.  Roasted her.  Then another on Tuesday night"  Maybe no previous, more of a "subsequent"??

Have you only had sex with the one girl?  Any of these girls come forward and say they were raped? Previous means no other convictions of lets say rape or sexual assualt or any crimes for that manner which would give a hint of a persons profile..

As for Ollies there has been talk that she tried it with the NI soccer lads and that didnt happen and she moved onto the rugby lads, she didnt just appear at their house, she must have made some advances to them surely?
Really?  Maybe they made advances to her and asked her back?  I wonder why you came to the conclusion it must have been her that came on to them?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 09:42:42 AM
If this board is representative of society as a whole then I'd bet my house on a hung jury!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 09:47:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on March 16, 2018, 09:52:59 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:29:48 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 09:25:04 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 16, 2018, 09:20:41 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

Allegedly CCT footage from Ollies shows her talking to a doctor most of the night, not any of the NI team or Jackson and Co.

No previous,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmm

What was the gist of one of McIlroy's messages "Pumped a bird with Jacko on Monday night.  Roasted her.  Then another on Tuesday night"  Maybe no previous, more of a "subsequent"??

Have you only had sex with the one girl?  Any of these girls come forward and say they were raped? Previous means no other convictions of lets say rape or sexual assualt or any crimes for that manner which would give a hint of a persons profile..

As for Ollies there has been talk that she tried it with the NI soccer lads and that didnt happen and she moved onto the rugby lads, she didnt just appear at their house, she must have made some advances to them surely?

Just my childhood sweetheart  ;)

Have me and my mates gangbanged a girl and went out the following night for a bit more, no and no.

Is that legal "previous", probably not, but it does give an insight into their thought processes and mentality and the disposability they viewed their conquests, what was it McIlroy texted about loving loose Belfast slappers?

Does that automatically make them rapists? No IMO.

On your second point I still can't understand why the prosecution didn't go after Jackson when the complainant claimed that she and Jackson consensually kissed, Paddy wanted more and she rejected him. She went to leave and had to go back upstairs to Paddys bedroom for her bag when the incident occurred.

Maybe there was no corroborating evidence to support her claims, who knows.

Us armchair ironsides are just going to have to wait on the professionals doing their jobs.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 10:00:35 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 09:47:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 10:18:46 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 10:00:35 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 09:47:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
Mr Hedworth told the jury the defence case is that the alleged victim "was in control of the three defendants, using each of them in turn for her own sexual gratification at the age of 19."

Factors indicating consent would include verbal confirmation and not leaving the engagement in a state. The fact she took her top off does not mean she consented.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 10:23:19 AM
Quote from: trailer on March 16, 2018, 09:39:37 AM
The one question we haven't got an answer to, is why did this girl leave her friends and go back to Jackson's house with 3 other girls she vaguely knew. What was she doing there?

She was invited back and accepted.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 16, 2018, 10:29:01 AM
Did she know who Paddy Jackson was prior to that night in Ollies?  Was she a follower of Rugby?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 16, 2018, 10:36:48 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 16, 2018, 10:29:01 AM
Did she know who Paddy Jackson was prior to that night in Ollies?  Was she a follower of Rugby?

She said she didn't know who he was
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on March 16, 2018, 10:37:33 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 16, 2018, 10:29:01 AM
Did she know who Paddy Jackson was prior to that night in Ollies?  Was she a follower of Rugby?

Allegedly not.

She still didn't know Oldings name after the event.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on March 16, 2018, 10:44:05 AM
This must be the worst thread ever been on this Board. Is impossible to get any sense of a trial from snapshots in the press. Trials are fascinating and a pity they aren't live on TV... having said that they are horrific for those involved and what rape victims are put through is just callous. Don't know in this case if  she is a victim or not no more than anyone else here knows. But as I've said before, 'beyond reasonable doubt' is  a high bar.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 10:50:50 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 10:18:46 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 10:00:35 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 09:47:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
Mr Hedworth told the jury the defence case is that the alleged victim "was in control of the three defendants, using each of them in turn for her own sexual gratification at the age of 19."

Factors indicating consent would include verbal confirmation and not leaving the engagement in a state. The fact she took her top off does not mean she consented.

I ploughed all the way through that article, do not see any mention of nymphomania in it.  Also those tasteless texts by the defendants which paint them in a really bad light were introduced as evidence by the PROSECUTION!!

You quote Toby Hedworth for some reason, he is the prosecutor summing up his own case, of course he is going to say that, its the entire basis of his case but its hardly evidence to support what u said u complete dolt.

As regards consent are u postulating that consent is not given unless it is verbal? If so can I ask u what planet did u originally inhabit?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 16, 2018, 10:59:37 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 16, 2018, 10:37:33 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 16, 2018, 10:29:01 AM
Did she know who Paddy Jackson was prior to that night in Ollies?  Was she a follower of Rugby?

Allegedly not.

She still didn't know Oldings name after the event.

Her texts would insinuate differently though.  Telling her friend she was back at 'Paddy Jacksons house' and even her friends response would suggest that they both knew who he was before.  Also, if she knew nothing about Rugby etc she wouldn't see Ulster Rugby as some powerful entity that she would have to go up against if she wanted to take her allegations further. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 10:59:56 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 10:50:50 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 10:18:46 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 10:00:35 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 09:47:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
Mr Hedworth told the jury the defence case is that the alleged victim "was in control of the three defendants, using each of them in turn for her own sexual gratification at the age of 19."

Factors indicating consent would include verbal confirmation and not leaving the engagement in a state. The fact she took her top off does not mean she consented.

I ploughed all the way through that article, do not see any mention of nymphomania in it.  Also those tasteless texts by the defendants which paint them in a really bad light were introduced as evidence by the PROSECUTION!!

You quote Toby Hedworth for some reason, he is the prosecutor summing up his own case, of course he is going ro say that, its the entire basis of his case u but its hardly evidence to support what u said u complete dolt.

As regards consent are u postulating that consent is not given unless it is verbal? If so can I ask u what planet did u originally inhabit?
The nympho implication is in the quote I kindly provided.
No need for insults either.
They degrade your argument.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 11:02:31 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 10:50:50 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 10:18:46 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 10:00:35 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 09:47:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
Mr Hedworth told the jury the defence case is that the alleged victim "was in control of the three defendants, using each of them in turn for her own sexual gratification at the age of 19."

Factors indicating consent would include verbal confirmation and not leaving the engagement in a state. The fact she took her top off does not mean she consented.

I ploughed all the way through that article, do not see any mention of nymphomania in it.  Also those tasteless texts by the defendants which paint them in a really bad light were introduced as evidence by the PROSECUTION!!

You quote Toby Hedworth for some reason, he is the prosecutor summing up his own case, of course he is going ro say that, its the entire basis of his case u but its hardly evidence to support what u said u complete dolt.

As regards consent are u postulating that consent is not given unless it is verbal? If so can I ask u what planet did u originally inhabit?

"U" asked him to list some indicators of consent. He did precisely that. Then "u" fail to understand how that works. It is "u" that is postulating here and, apparently, "u" that is the dolt.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 11:06:16 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 16, 2018, 10:59:37 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 16, 2018, 10:37:33 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 16, 2018, 10:29:01 AM
Did she know who Paddy Jackson was prior to that night in Ollies?  Was she a follower of Rugby?

Allegedly not.

She still didn't know Oldings name after the event.

Her texts would insinuate differently though.  Telling her friend she was back at 'Paddy Jacksons house' and even her friends response would suggest that they both knew who he was before.  Also, if she knew nothing about Rugby etc she wouldn't see Ulster Rugby as some powerful entity that she would have to go up against if she wanted to take her allegations further.

How does knowing who Paddy Jackson is insinuate she was a follower of rugby?

As a former methody pupil, she'd know all about Ulster rugby and its network without having to go to Ravenhill every second Friday to cheer on the boys.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 11:06:35 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 10:59:56 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 10:50:50 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 10:18:46 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 10:00:35 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 09:47:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
Mr Hedworth told the jury the defence case is that the alleged victim "was in control of the three defendants, using each of them in turn for her own sexual gratification at the age of 19."

Factors indicating consent would include verbal confirmation and not leaving the engagement in a state. The fact she took her top off does not mean she consented.

I ploughed all the way through that article, do not see any mention of nymphomania in it.  Also those tasteless texts by the defendants which paint them in a really bad light were introduced as evidence by the PROSECUTION!!

You quote Toby Hedworth for some reason, he is the prosecutor summing up his own case, of course he is going ro say that, its the entire basis of his case u but its hardly evidence to support what u said u complete dolt.

As regards consent are u postulating that consent is not given unless it is verbal? If so can I ask u what planet did u originally inhabit?
The nympho implication is in the quote I kindly provided.
No need for insults either.
They degrade your argument.

We are not having an argument. An argument is where 2 sides present facts and use reason and logic to debate these facts. This is not what is happening here though.

What is happening here is that you have made up a load of baseless nonsense ie that the defence case is based on portraying the complainant as a nymphomaniac, and I am showing u for the complete fool that you undoubtedly are.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 11:10:34 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 11:06:35 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 10:59:56 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 10:50:50 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 10:18:46 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 10:00:35 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 09:47:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
Mr Hedworth told the jury the defence case is that the alleged victim "was in control of the three defendants, using each of them in turn for her own sexual gratification at the age of 19."

Factors indicating consent would include verbal confirmation and not leaving the engagement in a state. The fact she took her top off does not mean she consented.

I ploughed all the way through that article, do not see any mention of nymphomania in it.  Also those tasteless texts by the defendants which paint them in a really bad light were introduced as evidence by the PROSECUTION!!

You quote Toby Hedworth for some reason, he is the prosecutor summing up his own case, of course he is going ro say that, its the entire basis of his case u but its hardly evidence to support what u said u complete dolt.

As regards consent are u postulating that consent is not given unless it is verbal? If so can I ask u what planet did u originally inhabit?
The nympho implication is in the quote I kindly provided.
No need for insults either.
They degrade your argument.

We are not having an argument. An argument is where 2 sides present facts and use reason and logic to debate these facts. This is not what is happening here though.

What is happening here is that you have made up a load of baseless nonsense ie that the defence case is based on portraying the complainant as a nymphomaniac, and I am showing u for the complete fool that you undoubtedly are.
How many men in the one session would you consider necessary to qualify for nympho status? The defence claim she had sex with 3 men in less than an hour.
The witness saw what was going on with Jackson and Olding and it was her first time seeing a threeesome live.
Or is that a standard Monday night in Belfast ?   
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 11:15:55 AM
Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 16, 2018, 11:18:28 AM
I still believe the jury will fail to come to a majority verdict and there will be no re-trial given the publicity and media reports.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 16, 2018, 11:26:51 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 16, 2018, 11:18:28 AM
I still believe the jury will fail to come to a majority verdict and there will be no re-trial given the publicity and media reports.

That's a pretty likely scenario I'd say
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 11:28:39 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 11:10:34 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 11:06:35 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 10:59:56 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 10:50:50 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 10:18:46 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 16, 2018, 10:00:35 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 09:47:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 08:04:32 AM
Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
Mr Hedworth told the jury the defence case is that the alleged victim "was in control of the three defendants, using each of them in turn for her own sexual gratification at the age of 19."

Factors indicating consent would include verbal confirmation and not leaving the engagement in a state. The fact she took her top off does not mean she consented.

I ploughed all the way through that article, do not see any mention of nymphomania in it.  Also those tasteless texts by the defendants which paint them in a really bad light were introduced as evidence by the PROSECUTION!!

You quote Toby Hedworth for some reason, he is the prosecutor summing up his own case, of course he is going ro say that, its the entire basis of his case u but its hardly evidence to support what u said u complete dolt.

As regards consent are u postulating that consent is not given unless it is verbal? If so can I ask u what planet did u originally inhabit?
The nympho implication is in the quote I kindly provided.
No need for insults either.
They degrade your argument.

We are not having an argument. An argument is where 2 sides present facts and use reason and logic to debate these facts. This is not what is happening here though.

What is happening here is that you have made up a load of baseless nonsense ie that the defence case is based on portraying the complainant as a nymphomaniac, and I am showing u for the complete fool that you undoubtedly are.
How many men in the one session would you consider necessary to qualify for nympho status?
What relevance does this have? Who am I to judge someone else's sexual mores as ling as they are within legal parameters? Framing such a question in this way says a lot about how u view women?
The defence claim she had sex with 3 men in less than an hour. The defence claim f**k all of the sort. U (especially for u Gallsman) seem to have trouble understanding the most basic information.
The witness saw what was going on with Jackson and Olding and it was her first time seeing a threeesome live.
Or is that a standard Monday night in Belfast ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 16, 2018, 11:32:38 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 11:15:55 AM
Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

No the jury can see her as can the judge and think so can the defendants via a screen (that is going from a tweet by Rosanna Cooney below:)

Rosanna Cooney


@RosannaCooney
Mar 9
More
Around the witness box is a curtain rail, the same idea as one around a hospital bed, the royal blue curtain can be pulled across one or both sides of the box.

The complainant in this trial had the curtain pulled across the front side of the box so she was directly visible to the judge, jury and to the barristers.

She was not directly visible to anyone else however a live stream camera was focused on the complainant while she gave her evidence and a TV on a trolley (like the kind from primary school) was rolled in and positioned to face the defendants dock directly, the TV was also visible to the gallery.

In the middle of the of the court, directly in front of the judge are long tables for the barristers and solicitors.

All of the senior counsel in this trial wear black robes and off-white powdered wigs.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 11:38:16 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 11:15:55 AM
Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 11:43:58 AM
Feckin part timers!!

Kelly has finished his closing and that's it for today.  Back on Wednesday for rest of closing.  This could run for another fortnight ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tintin25 on March 16, 2018, 11:51:58 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 11:38:16 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 11:15:55 AM
Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

This

My own thoughts are that stuff has went on that was consensual to a point (with Olding and Jackson to a degree), but someone (Jackson I feel) has crossed the line.

I certainly wouldn't believe the full account of the girl in question, but these lads are definitely hiding something.  McIlroy a pure con artist.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 11:38:16 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 11:15:55 AM
Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 12:14:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 11:38:16 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 11:15:55 AM
Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

That didn't stop Olding! 

Sorry, are you saying that the witness thought she saw Jackson having full sex with the alleged victim but he actually wasn't??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 16, 2018, 12:17:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 11:38:16 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 11:15:55 AM
Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off
+1. I also believe the prosecution only called her as they knew that the defence would if they didn't, making their case look even  shakier than it does now. Without Dara Florence the defendants wouldn't have a hope of being believed. They'd be done for.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 12:18:09 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 11:38:16 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 11:15:55 AM
Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

You're some joke.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on March 16, 2018, 12:19:17 PM
Quote from: tintin25 on March 16, 2018, 11:51:58 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 11:38:16 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 11:15:55 AM
Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

This

My own thoughts are that stuff has went on that was consensual to a point (with Olding and Jackson to a degree), but someone (Jackson I feel) has crossed the line.

I certainly wouldn't believe the full account of the girl in question, but these lads are definitely hiding something.  McIlroy a pure con artist.

Even if this guy is found innocent he has lost all credibility as a human being. Comes across as an awful person. Does anyone know what he works(ed) at?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:22:20 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 12:14:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 11:38:16 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 11:15:55 AM
Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

That didn't stop Olding! 

Sorry, are you saying that the witness thought she saw Jackson having full sex with the alleged victim but he actually wasn't??

I'm saying anything as i wasnt there, and neither were you, i'm giving another point to this, if this case was black and white it would be over by now and verdict given..

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 12:29:47 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:22:20 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 12:14:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 11:38:16 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 11:15:55 AM
Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

That didn't stop Olding! 

Sorry, are you saying that the witness thought she saw Jackson having full sex with the alleged victim but he actually wasn't??

I'm saying anything as i wasnt there, and neither were you, i'm giving another point to this, if this case was black and white it would be over by now and verdict given..

But Dara Florence was, and she says she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the alleged victim, no mention of dry humping or fingers.  In fact the defence accepts that when he saw Florence, Jackson said "Do you want to join in?"  "Join in" to what...dry humping??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:35:03 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 12:29:47 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:22:20 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 12:14:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 11:38:16 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 11:15:55 AM
Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

That didn't stop Olding! 

Sorry, are you saying that the witness thought she saw Jackson having full sex with the alleged victim but he actually wasn't??

I'm saying anything as i wasnt there, and neither were you, i'm giving another point to this, if this case was black and white it would be over by now and verdict given..

But Dara Florence was, and she says she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the alleged victim, no mention of dry humping or fingers.  In fact the defence accepts that when he saw Florence, Jackson said "Do you want to join in?"  "Join in" to what...dry humping??

I just said that I believe her, do you also believe the girl when she said she didnt notice anyone coming in or heard the words do you want to join in? Do you also accept that there would be physical evidence of PJ having intercourse?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Look-Up! on March 16, 2018, 12:36:14 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 15, 2018, 09:35:35 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 15, 2018, 08:02:11 PM
Was very much on the fence with this trial before the lads testimony. It looked like a case of he said she said but their stories just don't add up. Also while I had been reading the newspaper reports I'll admit I hadn't been following religiously. But just read this today for the first time which is a transcript of texts between the girl and her mate the morning after. It's from the mirror and a month old. I also cannot find the transcript being carried anywhere else by another news site but it's very disturbing reading and ties in with a lot of the other evidence and texts and has certainly got me leaning towards believing the girl.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/rugby-rape-trial-paddy-jackson-12027425

This is an even more complete record of all the text messages that happened.

Both involving the complainant and the defendants.


https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032

Thanks for the link. Hadn't read that.

One thing I'd take from that is that the lads certainly appeared hammered and their memory fuzzy but that girl did not leave the house in a low-key manner with the lads blissfully unaware in their room. The phone call to Harrison in the taxi looks like a check up on her. Was it something "hilarious" or demeaning or something more sinister? Harrison comes across as a real snake in the grass too. There looks to have been a concerted effort to manage the situation, muddy the waters and delete texts and I can see why police have him up for obstructing an investigation. Maybe at the start they were more worried about bad publicity more than actually having a criminal case to answer but once the seriousness of the situation became clear the truth should have been the priority. Innocent parties generally don't fear the truth. The defense painting Jackson as a lad that butter wouldn't melt in his mouth was a bit much too. You cannot but get the feeling that they are still withholding something. Some of the girl's story doesn't fully match up either but to me she comes across as much more believable. But is there enough there for a conviction? Maybe not.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 12:37:32 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 11:43:58 AM
Feckin part timers!!

Kelly has finished his closing and that's it for today.  Back on Wednesday for rest of closing.  This could run for another fortnight ::)
So another 50 pages
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 16, 2018, 12:44:37 PM
Myself and a few friends recently sat and discussed the whole notion of debate. The whole idea of opinion expressing and how it has changed. The general consensus was that people's opinions have very much gone down the lines of black or white and if you don't agree then you're a 'facist'  a such and such apologist etc etc. This thread is a prime example of that. Politics is a prime example of that and now it's all extreme, one side or the other. Perhaps this girl was raped, perhaps she wasn't. There's only 3-4 people who know the actual truth and their stories all vary. I have an opinion but that's all it is. My opinion also doesn't reflect what I believe the outcome might be as that is going to be determined by 11 other people's opinions.

This thread has really opened my eyes about how some people see the world and it is not nice. It really isn't.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 16, 2018, 12:50:46 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 16, 2018, 12:44:37 PM
Myself and a few friends recently sat and discussed the whole notion of debate. The whole idea of opinion expressing and how it has changed. The general consensus was that people's opinions have very much gone down the lines of black or white and if you don't agree then you're a 'facist'  a such and such apologist etc etc. This thread is a prime example of that. Politics is a prime example of that and now it's all extreme, one side or the other. Perhaps this girl was raped, perhaps she wasn't. There's only 3-4 people who know the actual truth and their stories all vary. I have an opinion but that's all it is. My opinion also doesn't reflect what I believe the outcome might be as that is going to be determined by 11 other people's opinions.

This thread has really opened my eyes about how some people see the world and it is not nice. It really isn't.

Oh dear. Sorry for disturbing your fairytale view of the world
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:53:11 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 16, 2018, 12:44:37 PM
Myself and a few friends recently sat and discussed the whole notion of debate. The whole idea of opinion expressing and how it has changed. The general consensus was that people's opinions have very much gone down the lines of black or white and if you don't agree then you're a 'facist'  a such and such apologist etc etc. This thread is a prime example of that. Politics is a prime example of that and now it's all extreme, one side or the other. Perhaps this girl was raped, perhaps she wasn't. There's only 3-4 people who know the actual truth and their stories all vary. I have an opinion but that's all it is. My opinion also doesn't reflect what I believe the outcome might be as that is going to be determined by 11 other people's opinions.

This thread has really opened my eyes about how some people see the world and it is not nice. It really isn't.

I will tel you this though BC1, if you were to sit down with 95% of the posters on here you'd have a decent debate and there may be an outcome that both of you will agree on (in parts) and there will be a some of it that you will agree to disagree with..

Face to face people are different, a lot of shit is lost when in these places (chat rooms) where most people hide behind a keyboard and say some shit that they wouldnt say to their wife friends or work colleauges, is it what they are really thinking or are they winding people up?

Never judge the reality of life through the disccusion board, I'd never take half the shit on here as being serious
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 12:53:58 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 16, 2018, 12:44:37 PM
Myself and a few friends recently sat and discussed the whole notion of debate. The whole idea of opinion expressing and how it has changed. The general consensus was that people's opinions have very much gone down the lines of black or white and if you don't agree then you're a 'facist'  a such and such apologist etc etc. This thread is a prime example of that. Politics is a prime example of that and now it's all extreme, one side or the other. Perhaps this girl was raped, perhaps she wasn't. There's only 3-4 people who know the actual truth and their stories all vary. I have an opinion but that's all it is. My opinion also doesn't reflect what I believe the outcome might be as that is going to be determined by 11 other people's opinions.

This thread has really opened my eyes about how some people see the world and it is not nice. It really isn't.

There's still people who simply are rape apologists and will weasel reasons to hold sexist opinions out of thin air and will hold those opinions despite any amount of contrary evidence, BC1. This has very little to do with the particulars of any single trial and can be seen in discussion around other cases like the Ched Evans one. You don't need to know the intimate details of a case to be able to identify people who are talking about those cases in bad faith. And then there are people who don't believe themselves to be acting in bad faith but are clearly being informed by societal prejudices.

Whatever your opinion on the supposed meta of trials pointing those types of people out is still entirely valid and better than letting them go unnoticed.

The opposite is much worse and clearly we have a breaking point with sexual assault with movements like MeToo. What could be swept under the rug when you were a kid no longer is possible. That is a positive development, to be honest.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:35:03 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 12:29:47 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:22:20 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 12:14:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 11:38:16 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 11:15:55 AM
Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

That didn't stop Olding! 

Sorry, are you saying that the witness thought she saw Jackson having full sex with the alleged victim but he actually wasn't??

I'm saying anything as i wasnt there, and neither were you, i'm giving another point to this, if this case was black and white it would be over by now and verdict given..

But Dara Florence was, and she says she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the alleged victim, no mention of dry humping or fingers.  In fact the defence accepts that when he saw Florence, Jackson said "Do you want to join in?"  "Join in" to what...dry humping??

I just said that I believe her, do you also believe the girl when she said she didnt notice anyone coming in or heard the words do you want to join in? Do you also accept that there would be physical evidence of PJ having intercourse?

Alls I'm saying is that if you believe Ms Florence's version of events, then you cannot simultaneously believe Jackson's version.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 01:03:40 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:35:03 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 12:29:47 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:22:20 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 12:14:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 16, 2018, 11:38:16 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 11:15:55 AM
Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

That didn't stop Olding! 

Sorry, are you saying that the witness thought she saw Jackson having full sex with the alleged victim but he actually wasn't??

I'm saying anything as i wasnt there, and neither were you, i'm giving another point to this, if this case was black and white it would be over by now and verdict given..

But Dara Florence was, and she says she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the alleged victim, no mention of dry humping or fingers.  In fact the defence accepts that when he saw Florence, Jackson said "Do you want to join in?"  "Join in" to what...dry humping??

I just said that I believe her, do you also believe the girl when she said she didnt notice anyone coming in or heard the words do you want to join in? Do you also accept that there would be physical evidence of PJ having intercourse?

Alls I'm saying is that if you believe Ms Florence's version of events, then you cannot simultaneously believe Jackson's version.
If you can't believe Jackson it is hard to see how the other 3 were telling the truth.  They remind me of 4 mountaineers connected by a rope on the edge of a deep ravine. Either they all make it or none  of them do.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 16, 2018, 01:09:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 16, 2018, 12:44:37 PM
Myself and a few friends recently sat and discussed the whole notion of debate. The whole idea of opinion expressing and how it has changed. The general consensus was that people's opinions have very much gone down the lines of black or white and if you don't agree then you're a 'facist'  a such and such apologist etc etc. This thread is a prime example of that. Politics is a prime example of that and now it's all extreme, one side or the other. Perhaps this girl was raped, perhaps she wasn't. There's only 3-4 people who know the actual truth and their stories all vary. I have an opinion but that's all it is. My opinion also doesn't reflect what I believe the outcome might be as that is going to be determined by 11 other people's opinions.

This thread has really opened my eyes about how some people see the world and it is not nice. It really isn't.
+1
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

If you genuinely, and I mean genuinely, believe this, then you are are moron and an idiot.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

If you genuinely, and I mean genuinely, believe this, then you are are moron and an idiot.

You dont know, and you weren't there.. id say the chances are very slim to none, but thats what he's said and they are going with that, you'd be a moron to guess what happened on the night and an idiot to suggest otherwise. as none of their stories (IP Defendants) seem convincing
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 01:37:10 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

If you genuinely, and I mean genuinely, believe this, then you are are moron and an idiot.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 16, 2018, 01:09:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 16, 2018, 12:44:37 PM
Myself and a few friends recently sat and discussed the whole notion of debate. The whole idea of opinion expressing and how it has changed. The general consensus was that people's opinions have very much gone down the lines of black or white and if you don't agree then you're a 'facist'  a such and such apologist etc etc. This thread is a prime example of that. Politics is a prime example of that and now it's all extreme, one side or the other. Perhaps this girl was raped, perhaps she wasn't. There's only 3-4 people who know the actual truth and their stories all vary. I have an opinion but that's all it is. My opinion also doesn't reflect what I believe the outcome might be as that is going to be determined by 11 other people's opinions.

This thread has really opened my eyes about how some people see the world and it is not nice. It really isn't.
+1
Great post BCB. The vast majority feel they need to pick a side as everything is binary. You have to be either green or orange or red or blue, snowflakes or facsists, boys versus girls. Lots of people (inc. on this thread) don't seem to understand nuance or shades of grey. Social media has exacerbated this as everyone thinks their opinion is valid and must be heard so you then have people playing to the crowd (virtue signallers) who need attention and affirmation that they are on "the right side".

I used to think it was a generational thing and it was younger people but this thread confirms that it crosses every boundary. And you're right it is sad.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 01:40:47 PM
I can think of no instance where anybody I know, or anybody I have heard of or ever encountered has thought "I can't get it up ffs. Hang on a moment, I'll just bang away with my flaccid length for a wee bit". It simply doesn't happen. Anyone even contemplating the idea that this is what happened would want to have a long, hard look at themselves.

The fact people are giving Dara Florence's testimony credence but then crying foul that she didn't walk up and verify with her own eyes that she saw him penetrate her vagina with an erect penis is embarrassing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 01:44:21 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 01:37:10 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

If you genuinely, and I mean genuinely, believe this, then you are are moron and an idiot.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 16, 2018, 01:09:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 16, 2018, 12:44:37 PM
Myself and a few friends recently sat and discussed the whole notion of debate. The whole idea of opinion expressing and how it has changed. The general consensus was that people's opinions have very much gone down the lines of black or white and if you don't agree then you're a 'facist'  a such and such apologist etc etc. This thread is a prime example of that. Politics is a prime example of that and now it's all extreme, one side or the other. Perhaps this girl was raped, perhaps she wasn't. There's only 3-4 people who know the actual truth and their stories all vary. I have an opinion but that's all it is. My opinion also doesn't reflect what I believe the outcome might be as that is going to be determined by 11 other people's opinions.

This thread has really opened my eyes about how some people see the world and it is not nice. It really isn't.
+1
Great post BCB. The vast majority feel they need to pick a side as everything is binary. You have to be either green or orange or red or blue, snowflakes or facsists, boys versus girls. Lots of people (inc. on this thread) don't seem to understand nuance or shades of grey. Social media has exacerbated this as everyone thinks their opinion is valid and must be heard so you then have people playing to the crowd (virtue signallers) who need attention and affirmation that they are on "the right side".

I used to think it was a generational thing and it was younger people but this thread confirms that it crosses every boundary. And you're right it is sad.

Tony, the use of alt-right terminology like 'virtue signaller' shows you have either knowingly or unknowingly picked a side. It totally undercuts your point when you use loaded terms like that.

There's plenty of over-reaction these days but it's much better overall than the lack of reaction and disgust that sexual assault and rape received in the not so distant past.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 01:44:55 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 01:37:10 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

If you genuinely, and I mean genuinely, believe this, then you are are moron and an idiot.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 16, 2018, 01:09:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 16, 2018, 12:44:37 PM
Myself and a few friends recently sat and discussed the whole notion of debate. The whole idea of opinion expressing and how it has changed. The general consensus was that people's opinions have very much gone down the lines of black or white and if you don't agree then you're a 'facist'  a such and such apologist etc etc. This thread is a prime example of that. Politics is a prime example of that and now it's all extreme, one side or the other. Perhaps this girl was raped, perhaps she wasn't. There's only 3-4 people who know the actual truth and their stories all vary. I have an opinion but that's all it is. My opinion also doesn't reflect what I believe the outcome might be as that is going to be determined by 11 other people's opinions.

This thread has really opened my eyes about how some people see the world and it is not nice. It really isn't.
+1
Great post BCB. The vast majority feel they need to pick a side as everything is binary. You have to be either green or orange or red or blue, snowflakes or facsists, boys versus girls. Lots of people (inc. on this thread) don't seem to understand nuance or shades of grey. Social media has exacerbated this as everyone thinks their opinion is valid and must be heard so you then have people playing to the crowd (virtue signallers) who need attention and affirmation that they are on "the right side".

I used to think it was a generational thing and it was younger people but this thread confirms that it crosses every boundary. And you're right it is sad.

I agree, but absolutely ludicrousness should be called out and condemned.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 01:50:46 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 01:44:55 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 01:37:10 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

If you genuinely, and I mean genuinely, believe this, then you are are moron and an idiot.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 16, 2018, 01:09:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 16, 2018, 12:44:37 PM
Myself and a few friends recently sat and discussed the whole notion of debate. The whole idea of opinion expressing and how it has changed. The general consensus was that people's opinions have very much gone down the lines of black or white and if you don't agree then you're a 'facist'  a such and such apologist etc etc. This thread is a prime example of that. Politics is a prime example of that and now it's all extreme, one side or the other. Perhaps this girl was raped, perhaps she wasn't. There's only 3-4 people who know the actual truth and their stories all vary. I have an opinion but that's all it is. My opinion also doesn't reflect what I believe the outcome might be as that is going to be determined by 11 other people's opinions.

This thread has really opened my eyes about how some people see the world and it is not nice. It really isn't.
+1
Great post BCB. The vast majority feel they need to pick a side as everything is binary. You have to be either green or orange or red or blue, snowflakes or facsists, boys versus girls. Lots of people (inc. on this thread) don't seem to understand nuance or shades of grey. Social media has exacerbated this as everyone thinks their opinion is valid and must be heard so you then have people playing to the crowd (virtue signallers) who need attention and affirmation that they are on "the right side".

I used to think it was a generational thing and it was younger people but this thread confirms that it crosses every boundary. And you're right it is sad.

I agree, but absolutely ludicrousness should be called out and condemned.
Always. And there is always plenty of it around these parts.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 02:03:15 PM
Syf forget about the terminology. There is no denying that people use social media to latch onto causes which will allow them to bask in some reflected glory. Lots of people have said (paraphrasing) that Jackson etc. should be hung by the balls yet when you try to he sensible and say they haven't been convicted of anything, you get tarred as a "rape apologist." No sane person would jump to their defence if they did it and were found guilty and some would advocate hanging them by the balls. But the reality is they are presumed innocent whether you have pre-concieved notions of the individuals; notions which may be driven by class, religion, the sport they play, the school they went to. It's very dangerous territory.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:07:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 02:30:40 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:07:05 PM
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.

Fúck right off.

I dismiss Asal Mor, Orior and MR2 because their views clearly and consistently indicate their prejudices. I have seen all three post long enough to make that call very confidently on this topic. Everyone else I have an issue with (barring the usual troll accounts that infest this place) it's no where near that black and white. You can say some very troubling things out of ignorance but that alone is not the same thing as proudly and unabashedly wearing your predjuices on your sleeve and trying to perpetuate them as some sort of quasi-common sense.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Jim Bob on March 16, 2018, 02:33:15 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 01:40:47 PM
I can think of no instance where anybody I know, or anybody I have heard of or ever encountered has thought "I can't get it up ffs. Hang on a moment, I'll just bang away with my flaccid length for a wee bit". It simply doesn't happen. Anyone even contemplating the idea that this is what happened would want to have a long, hard look at themselves.



"I can't get it up ffs" and "have a long ,hard " 😂😂
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 16, 2018, 02:36:08 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 02:30:40 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:07:05 PM
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.

Fúck right off.

I dismiss Asal Mor, Orior and MR2 because their views clearly and consistently indicate their prejudices. I have seen all three post long enough to make that call very confidently on this topic. Everyone else I have an issue with (barring the usual troll accounts that infest this place) it's no where near that black and white. You can say some very troubling things out of ignorance but that alone is not the same thing as proudly and unabashedly wearing your predjuices on your sleeve and trying to perpetuate them as some sort of quasi-common sense.
I note that you haven't denied the "sheep shagging" allegation
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 02:37:50 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 01:37:10 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 12:03:57 PM
I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

If you genuinely, and I mean genuinely, believe this, then you are are moron and an idiot.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 16, 2018, 01:09:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 16, 2018, 12:44:37 PM
Myself and a few friends recently sat and discussed the whole notion of debate. The whole idea of opinion expressing and how it has changed. The general consensus was that people's opinions have very much gone down the lines of black or white and if you don't agree then you're a 'facist'  a such and such apologist etc etc. This thread is a prime example of that. Politics is a prime example of that and now it's all extreme, one side or the other. Perhaps this girl was raped, perhaps she wasn't. There's only 3-4 people who know the actual truth and their stories all vary. I have an opinion but that's all it is. My opinion also doesn't reflect what I believe the outcome might be as that is going to be determined by 11 other people's opinions.

This thread has really opened my eyes about how some people see the world and it is not nice. It really isn't.
+1
Great post BCB. The vast majority feel they need to pick a side as everything is binary. You have to be either green or orange or red or blue, snowflakes or facsists, boys versus girls. Lots of people (inc. on this thread) don't seem to understand nuance or shades of grey. Social media has exacerbated this as everyone thinks their opinion is valid and must be heard so you then have people playing to the crowd (virtue signallers) who need attention and affirmation that they are on "the right side".

I used to think it was a generational thing and it was younger people but this thread confirms that it crosses every boundary. And you're right it is sad.
Everything isn't binary. Most posters couldn't care less about American sports or Laois football. Political discussions tend to be polarised and so is this one. But perhaps it has less to do with the world going to pot than the way people think. This court case is interesting because of who is involved and the reporting available on it. And the way people think will define the weight they put on the fact that the claimant took her top off. While others will look at the credibility of the defendants on the stand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 02:46:04 PM
I know everything isn't binary but lots of people take that approach to life. Re. the credibility of the defendants - their testimony leaves a lot to be desired but back when I was a younger man I've had nights out where I had a lot less to drink than Olding and I wouldn't be able to fully piece together a night, even if my liberty depended on it. So I'm not surprised their stories are all over the place, which crucially isn't evidence of them being rapists.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:49:01 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 02:30:40 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:07:05 PM
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.

Fúck right off.

I dismiss Asal Mor, Orior and MR2 because their views clearly and consistently indicate their prejudices. I have seen all three post long enough to make that call very confidently on this topic. Everyone else I have an issue with (barring the usual troll accounts that infest this place) it's no where near that black and white. You can say some very troubling things out of ignorance but that alone is not the same thing as proudly and unabashedly wearing your predjuices on your sleeve and trying to perpetuate them as some sort of quasi-common sense.

No. A few pages back, AQMP stated (you know, somewhat reasonably) that being stupid wasn't a crime. Your oh so witty retort was "You've covered up for people you were told were rapists?".

You're an embarrassment and it's people like you, on your crusades, who will end up ultimately prejudicing prosecutions and causing justice to fail to be served. You've no interest in justice here, you simply made your mind up from day one. You're simply a mouthpiece and I find it highly amusing for you to give out about someone as behaving "alt-right" when all you do is scream louder and louder every time. You're the Sean Spicer of the board. Fake news indeed.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:53:57 PM
Quote from: Jim Bob on March 16, 2018, 02:33:15 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 01:40:47 PM
I can think of no instance where anybody I know, or anybody I have heard of or ever encountered has thought "I can't get it up ffs. Hang on a moment, I'll just bang away with my flaccid length for a wee bit". It simply doesn't happen. Anyone even contemplating the idea that this is what happened would want to have a long, hard look at themselves.



"I can't get it up ffs" and "have a long ,hard " 😂😂

Yes yes, very good, well done.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 03:00:26 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 02:46:04 PM
I know everything isn't binary but lots of people take that approach to life. Re. the credibility of the defendants - their testimony leaves a lot to be desired but back when I was a younger man I've had nights out where I had a lot less to drink than Olding and I wouldn't be able to fully piece together a night, even if my liberty depended on it. So I'm not surprised their stories are all over the place, which crucially isn't evidence of them being rapists.

When you were younger? I find it harder now to remember nights out!

But I've been to plenty parties over the years and seen a lot of stuff going on that, looking back is very similar to these "modern" parties

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 03:04:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 03:00:26 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 02:46:04 PM
I know everything isn't binary but lots of people take that approach to life. Re. the credibility of the defendants - their testimony leaves a lot to be desired but back when I was a younger man I've had nights out where I had a lot less to drink than Olding and I wouldn't be able to fully piece together a night, even if my liberty depended on it. So I'm not surprised their stories are all over the place, which crucially isn't evidence of them being rapists.

When you were younger? I find it harder now to remember nights out!

But I've been to plenty parties over the years and seen a lot of stuff going on that, looking back is very similar to these "modern" parties
I don't get many nights out these days and avoid shorts otherwise I'd be hungover until Wednesday!

A feed of pints followed by a load of vodka and Red Bull and hours would go missing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 03:08:01 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 03:04:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 03:00:26 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 02:46:04 PM
I know everything isn't binary but lots of people take that approach to life. Re. the credibility of the defendants - their testimony leaves a lot to be desired but back when I was a younger man I've had nights out where I had a lot less to drink than Olding and I wouldn't be able to fully piece together a night, even if my liberty depended on it. So I'm not surprised their stories are all over the place, which crucially isn't evidence of them being rapists.

When you were younger? I find it harder now to remember nights out!

But I've been to plenty parties over the years and seen a lot of stuff going on that, looking back is very similar to these "modern" parties
I don't get many nights out these days and avoid shorts otherwise I'd be hungover until Wednesday!

A feed of pints followed by a load of vodka and Red Bull and hours would go missing.

I'll indulge tomorrow and god knows what will happen in the club!!!

Wake up Sunday morning as the hurling manager again! fecking nightmare
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 03:11:23 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:49:01 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 02:30:40 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:07:05 PM
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.

Fúck right off.

I dismiss Asal Mor, Orior and MR2 because their views clearly and consistently indicate their prejudices. I have seen all three post long enough to make that call very confidently on this topic. Everyone else I have an issue with (barring the usual troll accounts that infest this place) it's no where near that black and white. You can say some very troubling things out of ignorance but that alone is not the same thing as proudly and unabashedly wearing your predjuices on your sleeve and trying to perpetuate them as some sort of quasi-common sense.

No. A few pages back, AQMP stated (you know, somewhat reasonably) that being stupid wasn't a crime. Your oh so witty retort was "You've covered up for people you were told were rapists?".

You're an embarrassment and it's people like you, on your crusades, who will end up ultimately prejudicing prosecutions and causing justice to fail to be served. You've no interest in justice here, you simply made your mind up from day one. You're simply a mouthpiece and I find it highly amusing for you to give out about someone as behaving "alt-right" when all you do is scream louder and louder every time. You're the Sean Spicer of the board. Fake news indeed.

It was a valid rhetorical question in its context. It's strange you seem to think it's some brilliant gotcha to bring it up as a reply to what I just posted because it's a non-sequitur at best.

I'm not a juror on this trial so I can say whatever I damn well please and it doesn't prejudice anything. I'm not even a citizen of the country the trial is taking place in. Suggesting that me pointing out the pathetic apologist stances of some posters is causing justice to fail is probably a top tier nonsense line in a thread filled to the brim with them.

The old approach of pretending the justice system, particularly for sexual assault and rape cases, is infallible and the arbiter of truth (it only serves that role in a legal sense, which some here would do well to remember is a very narrow description) is far worse than highlighting the inherent biases that female rape victims face.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 03:19:00 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 03:11:23 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:49:01 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 02:30:40 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:07:05 PM
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.

Fúck right off.

I dismiss Asal Mor, Orior and MR2 because their views clearly and consistently indicate their prejudices. I have seen all three post long enough to make that call very confidently on this topic. Everyone else I have an issue with (barring the usual troll accounts that infest this place) it's no where near that black and white. You can say some very troubling things out of ignorance but that alone is not the same thing as proudly and unabashedly wearing your predjuices on your sleeve and trying to perpetuate them as some sort of quasi-common sense.

No. A few pages back, AQMP stated (you know, somewhat reasonably) that being stupid wasn't a crime. Your oh so witty retort was "You've covered up for people you were told were rapists?".

You're an embarrassment and it's people like you, on your crusades, who will end up ultimately prejudicing prosecutions and causing justice to fail to be served. You've no interest in justice here, you simply made your mind up from day one. You're simply a mouthpiece and I find it highly amusing for you to give out about someone as behaving "alt-right" when all you do is scream louder and louder every time. You're the Sean Spicer of the board. Fake news indeed.

It was a valid rhetorical question in its context. It's strange you seem to think it's some brilliant gotcha to bring it up as a reply to what I just posted because it's a non-sequitur at best.

I'm not a juror on this trial so I can say whatever I damn well please and it doesn't prejudice anything. I'm not even a citizen of the country the trial is taking place in. Suggesting that me pointing out the pathetic apologist stances of some posters is causing justice to fail is probably a top tier nonsense line in a thread filled to the brim with them.

The old approach of pretending the justice system, particularly for sexual assault and rape cases, is infallible and the arbiter of truth (it only serves that role in a legal sense, which some here would do well to remember is a very narrow description) is far worse than highlighting the inherent biases that female rape victims face.

Its the only system they have, had they your system then there would be a lot of innocent people in jail
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 03:19:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 03:08:01 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 03:04:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 03:00:26 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 16, 2018, 02:46:04 PM
I know everything isn't binary but lots of people take that approach to life. Re. the credibility of the defendants - their testimony leaves a lot to be desired but back when I was a younger man I've had nights out where I had a lot less to drink than Olding and I wouldn't be able to fully piece together a night, even if my liberty depended on it. So I'm not surprised their stories are all over the place, which crucially isn't evidence of them being rapists.

When you were younger? I find it harder now to remember nights out!

But I've been to plenty parties over the years and seen a lot of stuff going on that, looking back is very similar to these "modern" parties
I don't get many nights out these days and avoid shorts otherwise I'd be hungover until Wednesday!

A feed of pints followed by a load of vodka and Red Bull and hours would go missing.

I'll indulge tomorrow and god knows what will happen in the club!!!

Wake up Sunday morning as the hurling manager again! fecking nightmare
It worked out okay in the past!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Applesisapples on March 16, 2018, 03:27:02 PM
We've beenfollowing this case in the office, one of our female members of staff has been convinced from the start that they are not guilty. I have gone back and forth, if beyond reasonable doubt is the test then I think they may well walk. For me though the one nagging question is why a 19 yo would put her self through this, I don't buy the reputation argument. Making an allegation against two well know sports stars is noisy decision or path to take.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 03:32:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 03:11:23 PM
The old approach of pretending the justice system, particularly for sexual assault and rape cases, is infallible and the arbiter of truth (it only serves that role in a legal sense, which some here would do well to remember is a very narrow description) is far worse than highlighting the inherent biases that female rape victims face.

Nobody, literally nobody, has suggested this is the case. You appear to believe you're some sort of bastion of truth and righteousness.

Quote from: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 03:11:23 PM
It was a valid rhetorical question in its context. It's strange you seem to think it's some brilliant gotcha to bring it up as a reply to what I just posted because it's a non-sequitur at best.

No, it wasn't. It was a laughably transparent attempt to put controversial words in someone else's mouth.

Quote from: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 03:11:23 PMI'm not a juror on this trial so I can say whatever I damn well please and it doesn't prejudice anything. I'm not even a citizen of the country the trial is taking place in. Suggesting that me pointing out the pathetic apologist stances of some posters is causing justice to fail is probably a top tier nonsense line in a thread filled to the brim with them.

I see you've failed to understand my post and, in your rabid dog-like rush to respond, have shown once again that you've no interest in justice as a holistic concept, the rights of women or society holding people accountable for their actions - you simply want these lads, in this case done.

The most hilarious aspect of it all is that you appear to think that you, and only you, are capable of looking at this critically, or by applying some consideration and intellect. You're just a complete windbag.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 03:35:26 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 03:19:00 PM
Its the only system they have, had they your system then there would be a lot of innocent people in jail

That's not good enough either. By that logic, an incapable number wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice over the years could be written off by "it's the best system we have"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 16, 2018, 03:40:03 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:07:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 03:45:29 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 16, 2018, 03:40:03 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:07:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 03:47:13 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 03:32:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 03:11:23 PM
The old approach of pretending the justice system, particularly for sexual assault and rape cases, is infallible and the arbiter of truth (it only serves that role in a legal sense, which some here would do well to remember is a very narrow description) is far worse than highlighting the inherent biases that female rape victims face.

Nobody, literally nobody, has suggested this is the case. You appear to believe you're some sort of bastion of truth and righteousness.

Quote from: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 03:11:23 PM
It was a valid rhetorical question in its context. It's strange you seem to think it's some brilliant gotcha to bring it up as a reply to what I just posted because it's a non-sequitur at best.

No, it wasn't. It was a laughably transparent attempt to put controversial words in someone else's mouth.

Quote from: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 03:11:23 PMI'm not a juror on this trial so I can say whatever I damn well please and it doesn't prejudice anything. I'm not even a citizen of the country the trial is taking place in. Suggesting that me pointing out the pathetic apologist stances of some posters is causing justice to fail is probably a top tier nonsense line in a thread filled to the brim with them.

I see you've failed to understand my post and, in your rabid dog-like rush to respond, have shown once again that you've no interest in justice as a holistic concept, the rights of women or society holding people accountable for their actions - you simply want these lads, in this case done.

The most hilarious aspect of it all is that you appear to think that you, and only you, are capable of looking at this critically, or by applying some consideration and intellect. You're just a complete windbag.

Have you actually read anything Asal Mor has said? Frankly you're talking out of your hole on that one.

That you think I believe I am the only one capable of looking at this critically shows just how much of your argument is based on bad faith, unsupported by anything that has been said. Opinions are opinions. I have no interest in going around in circles on that one.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 03:59:29 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 03:35:26 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2018, 03:19:00 PM
Its the only system they have, had they your system then there would be a lot of innocent people in jail

That's not good enough either. By that logic, an incapable number wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice over the years could be written off by "it's the best system we have"

I'll put it another way, its the only system we have and that it is done by jury, basing it on the evidence thats been given and not the crap on here. Would you prefer the judge to pass judgement the? W've tried that here and it didnt work

So in your view the legal system is wrong and you have a better way of doing it?

Was it reported that she said she lost her friends in the club but CCTV shows her friend trying to get her to come with them at the end of the night?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 16, 2018, 04:00:58 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 03:47:13 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 03:32:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 03:11:23 PM
The old approach of pretending the justice system, particularly for sexual assault and rape cases, is infallible and the arbiter of truth (it only serves that role in a legal sense, which some here would do well to remember is a very narrow description) is far worse than highlighting the inherent biases that female rape victims face.

Nobody, literally nobody, has suggested this is the case. You appear to believe you're some sort of bastion of truth and righteousness.

Quote from: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 03:11:23 PM
It was a valid rhetorical question in its context. It's strange you seem to think it's some brilliant gotcha to bring it up as a reply to what I just posted because it's a non-sequitur at best.

No, it wasn't. It was a laughably transparent attempt to put controversial words in someone else's mouth.

Quote from: Syferus on March 16, 2018, 03:11:23 PMI'm not a juror on this trial so I can say whatever I damn well please and it doesn't prejudice anything. I'm not even a citizen of the country the trial is taking place in. Suggesting that me pointing out the pathetic apologist stances of some posters is causing justice to fail is probably a top tier nonsense line in a thread filled to the brim with them.

I see you've failed to understand my post and, in your rabid dog-like rush to respond, have shown once again that you've no interest in justice as a holistic concept, the rights of women or society holding people accountable for their actions - you simply want these lads, in this case done.

The most hilarious aspect of it all is that you appear to think that you, and only you, are capable of looking at this critically, or by applying some consideration and intellect. You're just a complete windbag.

Have you actually read anything Asal Mor has said? Frankly you're talking out of your hole on that one.

That you think I believe I am the only one capable of looking at this critically shows just how much of your argument is based on bad faith, unsupported by anything that has been said. Opinions are opinions. I have no interest in going around in circles on that one.

With all due respect you have criticised people who have differing views than youself.

If a person has based their view on the evidence they have heard have they not the same right as yourself to voice their opinions?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 04:24:08 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/months-of-paddy-jacksons-life-have-been-blighted-by-rugby-rape-case-jury-hears-36711795.html

Rugby player Paddy Jackson's life has been "blighted" for almost two years by the rape allegations, his lawyer has said.

Brendan Kelly QC described the evidence against the sportsman as "untruthful and inconsistent".

Mr Kelly told the jury that Jackson had not been obliged to take the stand in his own defence but he chose to do so.

"A defendant need play no part in a criminal trial. Some defendants choose to give evidence.

"In this case Mr Jackson and his co-defendants have all given evidence. No one has hidden. No one has tried to conceal. Everyone has got up, with their good character, and given their account," he said

Referring to Ms Florence's evidence that Jackson asked her if she wanted to join in Mr Kelly said: "What did they do to conceal (the rape)?"

He added: "When people commit crime they tend to hide, they tend to conceal what they did because they don't want to get caught.

"What did these two violent rapists do when she walked in? They invited her to join in. Dara Florence is absolutely central to this case."

Mr Kelly told the jury that the woman had been "petrified" that her sexual activity with Jackson and Olding would end up on social media.

"It was her main concern the morning after and in the days that followed. If it is your main concern why not tell a single friend?" he said.

The lawyer said she told her friend she had been raped in case an "expose" made its way onto social media.

"If it did get out on social media, this expose with this well known rugby player, one of the first persons to find out would be (said friend).

"So what do you do if you are trying to derail those rumours? You get in first, as soon as you wake that morning and your first port of call is (your friend)," he said.

Mr Kelly told the jury that after the woman told her friends she had been raped "she was stuck".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 16, 2018, 05:56:15 PM
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?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 06:08:56 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 16, 2018, 05:56:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 16, 2018, 09:42:22 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 06:08:56 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 16, 2018, 05:56:15 PM
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".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 16, 2018, 09:51:39 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 03:45:29 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 16, 2018, 03:40:03 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:07:05 PM
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.


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 16, 2018, 09:55:45 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 16, 2018, 09:42:22 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 06:08:56 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 16, 2018, 05:56:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 10:42:57 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 16, 2018, 09:51:39 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 03:45:29 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 16, 2018, 03:40:03 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:07:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 12:36:30 AM
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.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 17, 2018, 06:19:20 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 12:36:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 17, 2018, 06:49:35 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 12:36:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 17, 2018, 08:00:21 AM
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

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 17, 2018, 09:35:00 AM
Well said MR.

The level of confirmation bias here is unbelievable.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 17, 2018, 09:36:56 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 16, 2018, 09:55:45 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 16, 2018, 09:42:22 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 06:08:56 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 16, 2018, 05:56:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 17, 2018, 09:53:03 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 10:42:57 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 16, 2018, 09:51:39 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 03:45:29 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 16, 2018, 03:40:03 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:07:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 17, 2018, 09:54:05 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 17, 2018, 09:36:56 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 16, 2018, 09:55:45 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 16, 2018, 09:42:22 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2018, 06:08:56 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 16, 2018, 05:56:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 17, 2018, 10:02:46 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 16, 2018, 03:40:03 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:07:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 17, 2018, 10:10:11 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 17, 2018, 09:35:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 17, 2018, 10:14:25 AM
I'm no expert but he made all the points I'd expect him to make. What specifically was wrong with it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 17, 2018, 10:31:36 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 17, 2018, 10:02:46 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 16, 2018, 03:40:03 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:07:05 PM
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 :o
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 11:11:39 AM
Quote
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.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 11:15:33 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 17, 2018, 10:02:46 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 16, 2018, 03:40:03 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2018, 02:07:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 17, 2018, 12:08:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 11:11:39 AM
Quote
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?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 17, 2018, 12:29:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 17, 2018, 12:08:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 11:11:39 AM
Quote
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
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 12:53:19 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 17, 2018, 12:29:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 17, 2018, 12:08:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 11:11:39 AM
Quote
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

Somebody can think they had consent but not have had reasonable belief that they had.

That's the whole point.

And I think there's a very good chance that men who have had 20 drinks or more are in that zone.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 17, 2018, 01:21:28 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 12:53:19 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 17, 2018, 12:29:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 17, 2018, 12:08:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 11:11:39 AM
Quote
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

Somebody can think they had consent but not have had reasonable belief that they had.

That's the whole point.

And I think there's a very good chance that men who have had 20 drinks or more are in that zone.

You've misunderstood me - that's precisely my point.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 17, 2018, 06:07:40 PM
To be convicted of rape the prosecution must prove all three of the following beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. That there was penetration by a penis. (PJ disputes there was, SO accepts there was)

2. The penetration was not consensual (both defendants dispute it wasn't consensual.)

3.  The defendant did not reasonably believe the penetration was consensual. (Both defendants make clear they believed it was.)

Dealing only with point 3 that is going to be very difficult for the prosecution to prove. The jury will have a difficult job putting themselves in the defendants shoes in this regard. The fact they were drunk will have little bearing. If anything it helps the defendants. They have pointed to the asking of Dana Florence to join in and the tenor of their messages the next day as evidence that they believed the sex was consensual. From what I have read that doesn't seem to have been massively disputed. So assuming it's accepted the defendants did have a belief then The jury have to decide was that belie reasonable considering all the evidence in the case from both sides including but not limited to evidence about the girl going to the house, going back upstairs. Stirring at PJ all night. Saying no. The comment about at least use a condom, the lack of a struggle or cry for help, the version the defendants give etc. The jury will have to take that all into account. Only if they are satisifed beyond a reasonable doubt that the belief was one that no reasonable person in the position of the defendants could and I stress could have arrived at can they convict. I haven't read anything that gets me over that high threshold. Either because it hasn't been reported/didn't exist or because I have missed it.

Interestingly although I wasn't there I've spoken to thre lawyers who saw Brendan Kelly's closing and everyone of them thought it was excellent. Given how long it lasted I doubt we have the fuller flavour of it based on what's been posted here.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 06:38:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 17, 2018, 01:21:28 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 12:53:19 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 17, 2018, 12:29:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 17, 2018, 12:08:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 11:11:39 AM
Quote
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

Somebody can think they had consent but not have had reasonable belief that they had.

That's the whole point.

And I think there's a very good chance that men who have had 20 drinks or more are in that zone.

You've misunderstood me - that's precisely my point.

I didn't misunderstand you - you misunderstood me in thinking that I was disagreeing with you. I wasn't.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 17, 2018, 07:21:39 PM
One of Kelly's lines was very interesting.

"What did these two violent rapists do when she walked in? They invited her to join in. Dara Florence is absolutely central to this case."

Rose of Tralee escort territory . Such chivalry.
She saw Jacko in the top shaggers position which Jackson denies.
And if they had  20 drinks how off was their judgement ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on March 17, 2018, 07:30:52 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 11:11:39 AM
Quote
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.

Pretty smart from Mr Kelly I think you'll agree.  PJ and SO are nailed on to be found not guilty by my reckoning.  Any bookies out there offering odds?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitegoodman on March 17, 2018, 07:37:19 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 17, 2018, 06:07:40 PM
To be convicted of rape the prosecution must prove all three of the following beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. That there was penetration by a penis. (PJ disputes there was, SO accepts there was)

2. The penetration was not consensual (both defendants dispute it wasn't consensual.)

3.  The defendant did not reasonably believe the penetration was consensual. (Both defendants make clear they believed it was.)

Dealing only with point 3 that is going to be very difficult for the prosecution to prove. The jury will have a difficult job putting themselves in the defendants shoes in this regard. The fact they were drunk will have little bearing. If anything it helps the defendants. They have pointed to the asking of Dana Florence to join in and the tenor of their messages the next day as evidence that they believed the sex was consensual. From what I have read that doesn't seem to have been massively disputed. So assuming it's accepted the defendants did have a belief then The jury have to decide was that belie reasonable considering all the evidence in the case from both sides including but not limited to evidence about the girl going to the house, going back upstairs. Stirring at PJ all night. Saying no. The comment about at least use a condom, the lack of a struggle or cry for help, the version the defendants give etc. The jury will have to take that all into account. Only if they are satisifed beyond a reasonable doubt that the belief was one that no reasonable person in the position of the defendants could and I stress could have arrived at can they convict. I haven't read anything that gets me over that high threshold. Either because it hasn't been reported/didn't exist or because I have missed it.

Interestingly although I wasn't there I've spoken to thre lawyers who saw Brendan Kelly's closing and everyone of them thought it was excellent. Given how long it lasted I doubt we have the fuller flavour of it based on what's been posted here.

I would agree with a lot of this.  The prosecution case seems to be based on the boys being drunk, the WhatsApp messages, a girl crying in a taxi and conflicting stories.  If I was on the jury I would be questioning whether I have yet seen an ounce of actual evidence of the alleged crime.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 17, 2018, 07:42:55 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 17, 2018, 07:37:19 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 17, 2018, 06:07:40 PM
To be convicted of rape the prosecution must prove all three of the following beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. That there was penetration by a penis. (PJ disputes there was, SO accepts there was)

2. The penetration was not consensual (both defendants dispute it wasn't consensual.)

3.  The defendant did not reasonably believe the penetration was consensual. (Both defendants make clear they believed it was.)

Dealing only with point 3 that is going to be very difficult for the prosecution to prove. The jury will have a difficult job putting themselves in the defendants shoes in this regard. The fact they were drunk will have little bearing. If anything it helps the defendants. They have pointed to the asking of Dana Florence to join in and the tenor of their messages the next day as evidence that they believed the sex was consensual. From what I have read that doesn't seem to have been massively disputed. So assuming it's accepted the defendants did have a belief then The jury have to decide was that belie reasonable considering all the evidence in the case from both sides including but not limited to evidence about the girl going to the house, going back upstairs. Stirring at PJ all night. Saying no. The comment about at least use a condom, the lack of a struggle or cry for help, the version the defendants give etc. The jury will have to take that all into account. Only if they are satisifed beyond a reasonable doubt that the belief was one that no reasonable person in the position of the defendants could and I stress could have arrived at can they convict. I haven't read anything that gets me over that high threshold. Either because it hasn't been reported/didn't exist or because I have missed it.

Interestingly although I wasn't there I've spoken to thre lawyers who saw Brendan Kelly's closing and everyone of them thought it was excellent. Given how long it lasted I doubt we have the fuller flavour of it based on what's been posted here.

I would agree with a lot of this.  The prosecution case seems to be based on the boys being drunk, the WhatsApp messages, a girl crying in a taxi and conflicting stories.  If I was on the jury I would be questioning whether I have yet seen an ounce of actual evidence of the alleged crime.

3.  The defendant did not reasonably believe the penetration was consensual. (Both defendants make clear they believed it was.) 

After 23 drinks they wouldn't be trusted to drive. How reliable is anyone's judement when pissed as a fart?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitegoodman on March 17, 2018, 07:43:52 PM
Is that your basis for conviction??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 07:46:33 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 17, 2018, 07:43:52 PM
Is that your basis for conviction??

The woman who was raped saying she was raped goes a long way towards indicating what happened. What tells you she is lying?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitegoodman on March 17, 2018, 07:59:27 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 07:46:33 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 17, 2018, 07:43:52 PM
Is that your basis for conviction??

The woman who was raped saying she was raped goes a long way towards indicating what happened. What tells you she is lying?

I don't know who is lying but there are gaps on both sides and it's up to the prosecution to prove the case and imo that hasn't happened.  Hasn't been close in fact.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 07:59:48 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 17, 2018, 07:52:54 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 07:46:33 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 17, 2018, 07:43:52 PM
Is that your basis for conviction??

The woman who was raped saying she was raped goes a long way towards indicating what happened. What tells you she is lying?
A woman saying she was raped isn't enough to convict someone of rape. Being unable to prove she is lying still isn't.

It ain't all the evidence ladeen.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 17, 2018, 08:03:32 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 17, 2018, 07:43:52 PM
Is that your basis for conviction??
A very unconvincing defence would be.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 08:17:02 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 17, 2018, 07:52:54 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 07:46:33 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 17, 2018, 07:43:52 PM
Is that your basis for conviction??

The woman who was raped saying she was raped goes a long way towards indicating what happened. What tells you she is lying?
A woman saying she was raped isn't enough to convict someone of rape. Being unable to prove she is lying still isn't.
I would venture that in most rape cases, there are no independent witnesses to the crime - that's the nature of such a crime.

So, how on earth do rapes ever get convicted, one wonders?

But they do - 58% of UK rape trials in the last five years have resulted in a conviction.

I'd bet my last euro that if these cases were discussed here, there would be a large cohort of people who would be demanding an acquittal in most of them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitegoodman on March 17, 2018, 08:19:22 PM
It's not up to the defence to prove their innocence, it's up to the prosecution to prove their guilt.  Basing this on a shaky defence instead of bulletproof evidence isn't nearly enough imo.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Square Ball on March 17, 2018, 08:28:10 PM
To get a guilty verdict do the jury have to convict beyond  reasonable doubt?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 17, 2018, 08:31:35 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 07:46:33 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 17, 2018, 07:43:52 PM
Is that your basis for conviction??

The woman who was raped saying she was raped goes a long way towards indicating what happened. What tells you she is lying?

I don't think she is lying at all but I still can't get round the issue of whether or not the defendants reasonably believed she wasn't consenting.

The fact they were drunk doesn't make their belief less reasonable if anything in law it makes it more reasonable. The jury have to look at all the evidence and see if they are convinced that the defendants in the case didn't reasonably believe she was consenting.

Taking the original Ched Evans case as a great example of this. In that case the Court of Appeal opined at one stage the complaint was soo drunk she couldn't have legally consented but that McDonald was also so drunk that it couldn't be said that his belief in her consent wasn't reasonable. Hence his acquittal was not inconsistent with Evans original conviction
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on March 17, 2018, 08:31:58 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 17, 2018, 08:28:10 PM
To get a guilty verdict do the jury have to convict beyond  reasonable doubt?

That's the one... a high bar
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Square Ball on March 17, 2018, 09:16:23 PM
Quote from: longballin on March 17, 2018, 08:31:58 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 17, 2018, 08:28:10 PM
To get a guilty verdict do the jury have to convict beyond  reasonable doubt?

That's the one... a high bar

Well based on the opinions on here thats not going to happen then.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 17, 2018, 09:33:16 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 17, 2018, 08:28:10 PM
To get a guilty verdict do the jury have to convict beyond  reasonable doubt?

Yes. This is the case for all criminal trials.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on March 17, 2018, 10:13:08 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 17, 2018, 09:16:23 PM
Quote from: longballin on March 17, 2018, 08:31:58 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 17, 2018, 08:28:10 PM
To get a guilty verdict do the jury have to convict beyond  reasonable doubt?

That's the one... a high bar

Well based on the opinions on here thats not going to happen then.

I don't think so but we only get a snapshot of the evidence and don't see the body language and demenour of witnesses but there are a lot of fireside barristers her no doubt!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
IMO there is just not enough to put this beyond "reasonable doubt", considering...
1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.
3) No Jackson semen was inside of her.

Yes I know they made a mess of things on the stand and Olding went on a solo run. Is this enough to convict on a rape charge with 4-5 years prison sentence?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
IMO there is just not enough to put this beyond "reasonable doubt", considering...
1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.
3) No Jackson semen was inside of her.

Yes I know they made a mess of things on the stand and Olding went on a solo run. Is this enough to convict on a rape charge with 4-5 years prison sentence?

She did?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 11:21:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
IMO there is just not enough to put this beyond "reasonable doubt", considering...
1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.
3) No Jackson semen was inside of her.

Yes I know they made a mess of things on the stand and Olding went on a solo run. Is this enough to convict on a rape charge with 4-5 years prison sentence?

She did?

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/i-saw-a-threesome-in-paddy-jacksons-room-woman-tells-rape-trial-36601326.html

She did.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 11:25:44 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 11:21:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
IMO there is just not enough to put this beyond "reasonable doubt", considering...
1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.
3) No Jackson semen was inside of her.

Yes I know they made a mess of things on the stand and Olding went on a solo run. Is this enough to convict on a rape charge with 4-5 years prison sentence?

She did?

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/i-saw-a-threesome-in-paddy-jacksons-room-woman-tells-rape-trial-36601326.html

She did.

Are you sure?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 11:33:08 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 11:25:44 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 11:21:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
IMO there is just not enough to put this beyond "reasonable doubt", considering...
1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.
3) No Jackson semen was inside of her.

Yes I know they made a mess of things on the stand and Olding went on a solo run. Is this enough to convict on a rape charge with 4-5 years prison sentence?

She did?

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/i-saw-a-threesome-in-paddy-jacksons-room-woman-tells-rape-trial-36601326.html

She did.

Are you sure?

Pretty sure...

Reading from one of her police statements, Mr Kelly quoted Ms Florence as saying: "I would not say the female was distressed."

When asked by Mr Kelly if this remains her recollection she said: "One hundred per cent."

She further added in her police statement: "When I left the room I did not feel that I had just witnessed a rape."

Mr Kelly asked: "Is that still correct?"

"Yes," she replied.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 17, 2018, 11:45:06 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 11:33:08 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 11:25:44 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 11:21:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
IMO there is just not enough to put this beyond "reasonable doubt", considering...
1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.
3) No Jackson semen was inside of her.

Yes I know they made a mess of things on the stand and Olding went on a solo run. Is this enough to convict on a rape charge with 4-5 years prison sentence?

She did?

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/i-saw-a-threesome-in-paddy-jacksons-room-woman-tells-rape-trial-36601326.html

She did.

Are you sure?

Pretty sure...

Reading from one of her police statements, Mr Kelly quoted Ms Florence as saying: "I would not say the female was distressed."

When asked by Mr Kelly if this remains her recollection she said: "One hundred per cent."

She further added in her police statement: "When I left the room I did not feel that I had just witnessed a rape."

Mr Kelly asked: "Is that still correct?"

"Yes," she replied.

Not point arguing with thon clown.  He was in the room on the night and knows it was 100% rape.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 11:48:33 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 11:33:08 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 11:25:44 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 11:21:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
IMO there is just not enough to put this beyond "reasonable doubt", considering...
1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.
3) No Jackson semen was inside of her.

Yes I know they made a mess of things on the stand and Olding went on a solo run. Is this enough to convict on a rape charge with 4-5 years prison sentence?

She did?

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/i-saw-a-threesome-in-paddy-jacksons-room-woman-tells-rape-trial-36601326.html

She did.

Are you sure?

Pretty sure...

Reading from one of her police statements, Mr Kelly quoted Ms Florence as saying: "I would not say the female was distressed."

When asked by Mr Kelly if this remains her recollection she said: "One hundred per cent."

She further added in her police statement: "When I left the room I did not feel that I had just witnessed a rape."

Mr Kelly asked: "Is that still correct?"

"Yes," she replied.

Read it again.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 17, 2018, 11:57:44 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 17, 2018, 08:17:02 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 17, 2018, 07:52:54 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 17, 2018, 07:46:33 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 17, 2018, 07:43:52 PM
Is that your basis for conviction??

The woman who was raped saying she was raped goes a long way towards indicating what happened. What tells you she is lying?
A woman saying she was raped isn't enough to convict someone of rape. Being unable to prove she is lying still isn't.
I would venture that in most rape cases, there are no independent witnesses to the crime - that's the nature of such a crime.

So, how on earth do rapes ever get convicted, one wonders?

But they do - 58% of UK rape trials in the last five years have resulted in a conviction.

I'd bet my last euro that if these cases were discussed here, there would be a large cohort of people who would be demanding an acquittal in most of them.
As you said cases don't often  feature an independent witness , certainly not one who felt it hadn't looked like rape and who was ignored by the alleged victim rather than being asked for help.


If this was her word against their's they'd be convicted imo. As Kelly said the testimony of Florence is extraordinary and it's not a he said v she said case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2018, 12:39:40 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM

1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.

She said she saw no signs of positive consent.

Dara Florence was simply not in a position to be able to say categorically that that it was not rape, because she is not the complainant, and cannot know what the complainant was feeling.

If there were no signs of positive consent, the most that could have been observed is compliance.

Compliance is not consent.

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.

Not inconclusive. Dr. Lavery who actually examined the complainant, was quite clear on this, and that the source of the blood was not menstrual, rather it was from a "full laceration tear".

The medical witness who questioned this did not examine the complainant, so again, she was in no position to dispute Dr. Lavery's findings. She was basically a hired gun for the defence.

No wound or bruising can by itself prove that rape occurred. But a wound and bruising of that nature is certainly "consistent with rape or sexual assault".

It's all about the framing. That's how a similar wound to the victim of Mike Tyson was framed. It applies in this case too.




Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 08:16:33 AM
What is this positive consent you wanted her to see ?  You want the girl to stop in the middle of things any say hey everything is fine I'm having a great time?  I'm not sure that's how it works!!

If I was on the jury this evidence is key.  This was the girls chance to get help.  Instead she turned her head away in what looks like either  embarrassment or fear photos were going to be taken.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 18, 2018, 08:52:01 AM
I can't understand how so many people on this board appear to know how and exactly they would react if they were a 19 year old girl being raped by two people in a house full of strangers. Half of you couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time, but congrats on the very progressive attitudes. Impressive for lads from a country with a fiercely conservative attitude of machismo.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 09:15:40 AM
An absolutely tremendous contribution to the thread.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 18, 2018, 09:48:35 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2018, 12:39:40 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM

1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.

She said she saw no signs of positive consent.

Dara Florence was simply not in a position to be able to say categorically that that it was not rape, because she is not the complainant, and cannot know what the complainant was feeling.

If there were no signs of positive consent, the most that could have been observed is compliance.

Compliance is not consent.

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.

Not inconclusive. Dr. Lavery who actually examined the complainant, was quite clear on this, and that the source of the blood was not menstrual, rather it was from a "full laceration tear".

The medical witness who questioned this did not examine the complainant, so again, she was in no position to dispute Dr. Lavery's findings. She was basically a hired gun for the defence.

No wound or bruising can by itself prove that rape occurred. But a wound and bruising of that nature is certainly "consistent with rape or sexual assault".

It's all about the framing. That's how a similar wound to the victim of Mike Tyson was framed. It applies in this case too.

Is the wound not consistent with Paddy Jacksons claim of digital penetration.

And on this subject did the IP not state categorically that this was what happened ie that Jackson penetrated her with his fingers.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 18, 2018, 10:11:31 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 18, 2018, 09:48:35 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 18, 2018, 12:39:40 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM

1) The only independent witness in the entire case categorically stated what she witnessed was not rape, rather a threesome.

She said she saw no signs of positive consent.

Dara Florence was simply not in a position to be able to say categorically that that it was not rape, because she is not the complainant, and cannot know what the complainant was feeling.

If there were no signs of positive consent, the most that could have been observed is compliance.

Compliance is not consent.

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 17, 2018, 10:37:49 PM
2) The inconclusive nature of the laceration. Could be menstrual, could be a finger etc.

Not inconclusive. Dr. Lavery who actually examined the complainant, was quite clear on this, and that the source of the blood was not menstrual, rather it was from a "full laceration tear".

The medical witness who questioned this did not examine the complainant, so again, she was in no position to dispute Dr. Lavery's findings. She was basically a hired gun for the defence.

No wound or bruising can by itself prove that rape occurred. But a wound and bruising of that nature is certainly "consistent with rape or sexual assault".

It's all about the framing. That's how a similar wound to the victim of Mike Tyson was framed. It applies in this case too.

Is the wound not consistent with Paddy Jacksons claim of digital penetration.

And on this subject did the IP not state categorically that this was what happened ie that Jackson penetrated her with his fingers.

IP?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 18, 2018, 10:24:41 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 18, 2018, 10:11:31 AM

IP?

Injured Party
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 18, 2018, 10:34:08 AM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 08:16:33 AM
What is this positive consent you wanted her to see ?  You want the girl to stop in the middle of things any say hey everything is fine I'm having a great time?  I'm not sure that's how it works!!

If I was on the jury this evidence is key.  This was the girls chance to get help.  Instead she turned her head away in what looks like either  embarrassment or fear photos were going to be taken.
Rape is about control and submission. Ms Florence saw the scene of less than a minute and wasn't thinking about rape. She was probably shocked to be asked to.join in.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 10:56:38 AM
She was asked to join in in a rape?? Do you think if they really thought they were committing rape they would ask her to join in?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 18, 2018, 12:02:35 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 10:56:38 AM
She was asked to join in in a rape?? Do you think if they really thought they were committing rape they would ask her to join in?
They were pissed.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 18, 2018, 12:03:30 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 10:56:38 AM
She was asked to join in in a rape?? Do you think if they really thought they were committing rape they would ask her to join in?

Why are you trying to apply sober-eyed social norms to something the woman and the State say was rape? Bizarre.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 12:09:00 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 18, 2018, 12:03:30 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 10:56:38 AM
She was asked to join in in a rape?? Do you think if they really thought they were committing rape they would ask her to join in?

Why are you trying to apply sober-eyed social norms to something the woman and the State say was rape? Bizarre.

Ahh right I missed that bit.  Case closed then, why are they even bothering with this going to trial?  If the she and the state say it's so then that makes it fact !!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 18, 2018, 12:41:10 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 12:09:00 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 18, 2018, 12:03:30 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 10:56:38 AM
She was asked to join in in a rape?? Do you think if they really thought they were committing rape they would ask her to join in?

Why are you trying to apply sober-eyed social norms to something the woman and the State say was rape? Bizarre.

Ahh right I missed that bit.  Case closed then, why are they even bothering with this going to trial?  If the she and the state say it's so then that makes it fact !!!!

You're some ticket.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 18, 2018, 12:50:00 PM
Wrong whitegoodman.....Syf says it was rape.
Case closed.
No need for a trial
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 12:55:52 PM
Ahh now I get it, thanks for the correction.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 18, 2018, 12:59:59 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 10:56:38 AM
She was asked to join in in a rape?? Do you think if they really thought they were committing rape they would ask her to join in?

That's the exact red herring Mr. Kelly QC introduced.

It's almost like people are deliberately feigning ignorance of what rape is for transparently disingenuous reasons.

That or they simply don't understand what it is.

I'm not sure which is worse.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 18, 2018, 04:12:48 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 10:56:38 AM
She was asked to join in in a rape?? Do you think if they really thought they were committing rape they would ask her to join in?
What they thought or did not think is of no relevance. The issue is consent or lack of consent.
If the jury have doubts that she did not give consent then that doubt must go to the benefit of the accused. If they are acquitted of rape then the charge of witholding information and perverting the course of justice is gone as well
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 18, 2018, 04:31:31 PM
Is it the done thing in Belfast to hang around and have a gawk when you open the door and see/hear people getting it on? On the rare occasion I entered such a room, I doubt I ever got as far as fully opening the door before closing it again
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2018, 05:29:42 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 18, 2018, 04:49:19 PM
Yeah. Along with shell suits and joyriding it sets us apart.

Only joyriding if conset was given
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 18, 2018, 05:55:29 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 18, 2018, 04:31:31 PM
Is it the done thing in Belfast to hang around and have a gawk when you open the door and see/hear people getting it on? On the rare occasion I entered such a room, I doubt I ever got as far as fully opening the door before closing it again

Is the suggestion not that she opened the door, got shocked, closed the door? Don't think there's been any mention of a prolonged gawk.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2018, 06:52:13 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 18, 2018, 05:55:29 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 18, 2018, 04:31:31 PM
Is it the done thing in Belfast to hang around and have a gawk when you open the door and see/hear people getting it on? On the rare occasion I entered such a room, I doubt I ever got as far as fully opening the door before closing it again

Is the suggestion not that she opened the door, got shocked, closed the door? Don't think there's been any mention of a prolonged gawk.

About a minute or under? Now if I opened the door for 30 seconds that's still long
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 18, 2018, 07:35:12 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 18, 2018, 04:12:48 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 10:56:38 AM
She was asked to join in in a rape?? Do you think if they really thought they were committing rape they would ask her to join in?
What they thought or did not think is of no relevance. The issue is consent or lack of consent.
If the jury have doubts that she did not give consent then that doubt must go to the benefit of the accused. If they are acquitted of rape then the charge of witholding information and perverting the course of justice is gone as well

Actually what they thought is entirely relevant. If they believed she was consenting and that belief was a reasonable one for someone in their position to have then they are not guilty of rape regardless of whether or not she consented. That maybe shouldn't be the law but that's a different argument.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 18, 2018, 10:25:37 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 18, 2018, 05:55:29 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 18, 2018, 04:31:31 PM
Is it the done thing in Belfast to hang around and have a gawk when you open the door and see/hear people getting it on? On the rare occasion I entered such a room, I doubt I ever got as far as fully opening the door before closing it again

Is the suggestion not that she opened the door, got shocked, closed the door? Don't think there's been any mention of a prolonged gawk.
An eyeful is better than a mouthful
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 18, 2018, 10:34:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 18, 2018, 05:55:29 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 18, 2018, 04:31:31 PM
Is it the done thing in Belfast to hang around and have a gawk when you open the door and see/hear people getting it on? On the rare occasion I entered such a room, I doubt I ever got as far as fully opening the door before closing it again

Is the suggestion not that she opened the door, got shocked, closed the door? Don't think there's been any mention of a prolonged gawk.

The way it was reported was "under a minute" I think which makes it sound like a reasonable amount of time. Long enough to be invited to join anyway.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on March 18, 2018, 10:36:05 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 08:16:33 AM
What is this positive consent you wanted her to see ?  You want the girl to stop in the middle of things any say hey everything is fine I'm having a great time?  I'm not sure that's how it works!!

If I was on the jury this evidence is key.  This was the girls chance to get help.  Instead she turned her head away in what looks like either  embarrassment or fear photos were going to be taken.
The defense  is conveniently selective in what part of the witness' evidence they are using. The witness said she was 100% certain she did not see any distress, but the defense conveniently ignored that she also claimed she was 100% certain that Jackson had penetrative sex with her.
We have a situation where she is 100% certain on both questions, but her second 100% certainty completely contradicts Jackson's testimony.
And that part of her testimony could well have been a good part of the reasoning why Jackson decided to take the stand.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2018, 10:38:57 PM
What did the taxi man say? Did he hear say anything that would help the prosecution ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 18, 2018, 11:10:46 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 18, 2018, 10:36:05 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 08:16:33 AM
What is this positive consent you wanted her to see ?  You want the girl to stop in the middle of things any say hey everything is fine I'm having a great time?  I'm not sure that's how it works!!

If I was on the jury this evidence is key.  This was the girls chance to get help.  Instead she turned her head away in what looks like either  embarrassment or fear photos were going to be taken.
The defense  is conveniently selective in what part of the witness' evidence they are using. The witness said she was 100% certain she did not see any distress, but the defense conveniently ignored that she also claimed she was 100% certain that Jackson had penetrative sex with her.
We have a situation where she is 100% certain on both questions, but her second 100% certainty completely contradicts Jackson's testimony.
And that part of her testimony could well have been a good part of the reasoning why Jackson decided to take the stand.

She didn't say she 100% certain she didn't see any distress. She said she didn't see any distress and then was asked if that was still her position when questioned sorting the trial and she said yes, 100%.

That is her saying "that is 100% my position, she did not appear to be in any distress", not her saying "she was 100% not in distress"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on March 18, 2018, 11:22:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 18, 2018, 11:10:46 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 18, 2018, 10:36:05 PM
Quote from: whitegoodman on March 18, 2018, 08:16:33 AM
What is this positive consent you wanted her to see ?  You want the girl to stop in the middle of things any say hey everything is fine I'm having a great time?  I'm not sure that's how it works!!

If I was on the jury this evidence is key.  This was the girls chance to get help.  Instead she turned her head away in what looks like either  embarrassment or fear photos were going to be taken.
The defense  is conveniently selective in what part of the witness' evidence they are using. The witness said she was 100% certain she did not see any distress, but the defense conveniently ignored that she also claimed she was 100% certain that Jackson had penetrative sex with her.
We have a situation where she is 100% certain on both questions, but her second 100% certainty completely contradicts Jackson's testimony.
And that part of her testimony could well have been a good part of the reasoning why Jackson decided to take the stand.

She didn't say she 100% certain she didn't see any distress. She said she didn't see any distress and then was asked if that was still her position when questioned sorting the trial and she said yes, 100%.

That is her saying "that is 100% my position, she did not appear to be in any distress", not her saying "she was 100% not in distress"

You are surmising. The witness did not say "appear". 

I said she was 100% certain she did not see distress.

as reported
Reading from one of her police statements, Mr Kelly quoted Ms Florence as saying: "I would not say the female was distressed."
When asked by Mr Kelly if this remains her recollection she said: "One hundred per cent."
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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?



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2018, 11:58:59 PM
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?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 19, 2018, 12:11:29 AM
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
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 19, 2018, 12:38:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 19, 2018, 06:42:29 PM
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
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 19, 2018, 09:17:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 20, 2018, 09:59:01 AM
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
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 20, 2018, 04:21:46 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.
Some people I have discussed it with said she was too cool so composure has some perceived disadvantages as well as advantages.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 20, 2018, 04:24:46 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?

If your parent's are solicitors, you'd like to think that you'd be well versed, shall we say.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2018, 04:46:02 PM
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!  ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 20, 2018, 04:55:28 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 20, 2018, 04:54:10 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 20, 2018, 04:24:46 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?

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

I know this is doing the rounds but it's not accurate.

Lots of lies doing the rounds about this girl.....none have materialised to be true.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 20, 2018, 04:57:07 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 20, 2018, 04:55:28 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 20, 2018, 04:54:10 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 20, 2018, 04:24:46 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?

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

I know this is doing the rounds but it's not accurate.

Lots of lies doing the rounds about this girl.....none have materialised to be true.

Yeah on that basis the witness stand should have been a breeze for Harrison...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 21, 2018, 12:56:51 AM
Was the general consensus not that Jackson did ok?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 01:27:53 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 21, 2018, 12:56:51 AM
Was the general consensus not that Jackson did ok?

Wow. No it was not.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 05:20:25 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 21, 2018, 12:56:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 06:19:45 AM
The whole circus is sordid. All the lies and ass covering. Even if the 4 are acquitted that won't change.

Jackson reminds me of this song
https://youtu.be/Tk7H6azPCa8


"I took her clothes off and I played with her bits
And she did the same but it took ages for me to come
Too drunk and getting old"

I came across a video of him on the Japan tour where he talks about being one of the older heads and how it is great to see Jacob getting his chance

https://youtu.be/v7C5WZubYQU

Life moves on for everyone else. Stockdale got 7 tries. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 21, 2018, 08:39:21 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 05:20:25 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 21, 2018, 12:56:51 AM
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.

I did hear a rumour her parents work in the field - dad either a judge or barrister and mum a solicitor.  (could be b*llshit though)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 08:55:52 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 21, 2018, 08:39:21 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 05:20:25 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 21, 2018, 12:56:51 AM
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.

I did hear a rumour her parents work in the field - dad either a judge or barrister and mum a solicitor.  (could be b*llshit though)

Heard medical and uncle was a a barrister, could be bullshit and wouldnt make a pile of difference, she answered very well and the guys didnt, its just down to the jury
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 08:56:27 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 21, 2018, 08:39:21 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 05:20:25 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 21, 2018, 12:56:51 AM
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.

I did hear a rumour her parents work in the field - dad either a judge or barrister and mum a solicitor.  (could be b*llshit though)

It is. 

There's no doubt she was coached.  So were the defendants, after all Harrison's father is a solicitor ("Dad will know what to say").  If that's not coaching from the get-go...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
The defendants all had stupid tweets / messages they had to explain/disown.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 21, 2018, 09:12:06 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 08:56:27 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 21, 2018, 08:39:21 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 05:20:25 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 21, 2018, 12:56:51 AM
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.

I did hear a rumour her parents work in the field - dad either a judge or barrister and mum a solicitor.  (could be b*llshit though)

It is. 

There's no doubt she was coached.  So were the defendants, after all Harrison's father is a solicitor ("Dad will know what to say").  If that's not coaching from the get-go...

In my view solicitors on both sides would not be doing their job properly if they were not "coaching" their clients on how to respond. Coaching can only take you so far though,  It was clear from the IPs testimony that she is a highly articulate, intelligent girl (I think she is a medical student?) and that will resonate with the jury. The defendants not so much.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 21, 2018, 09:13:27 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 21, 2018, 08:39:21 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 05:20:25 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 21, 2018, 12:56:51 AM
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.

I did hear a rumour her parents work in the field - dad either a judge or barrister and mum a solicitor.  (could be b*llshit though)
Dunno about that, but she came across as extremely well coached. She had pre-prepared lines for whenever she was accused of an inconsistency or whenever the defense lawyers were stating or implying something she disagreed with. She seemed to elaborate whenever she could, rather than sticking to Yes/No answers. Overall it seemed to me that she had a confident and coherent answer for pretty much every single question asked. The exact way I'd want to be if I was being questioned in court.

I've no doubt Jackson came across well. Anytime he's been interviewed he comes across as very likeable. Whether you believe the message is another story.
The issue with all the lads testimonies was the inconsistencies. I think the difference between Jackson and Olding could probably be explained by drink. McIlroy is pure fantasy! It would seem that there was never a time when the 4 lads and the 4 (or more) lawyers got in a room to come up with a strategy. Unless the strategy was to come up with 4 independent strategies!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 09:15:19 AM
when will the jury get to decide on this? after today?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 09:18:03 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 09:15:19 AM
when will the jury get to decide on this? after today?

Olding, McIlroy and Harrison's barristers haven't summed up yet.  There's that to be done and then the judge's direction to the jury.  Not sure how long all that will take.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 09:22:55 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 09:18:03 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 09:15:19 AM
when will the jury get to decide on this? after today?

Olding, McIlroy and Harrison's barristers haven't summed up yet.  There's that to be done and then the judge's direction to the jury.  Not sure how long all that will take.

McIlroy and Harrison's barristers will have to earn their crust I'd say, Hearing prices of over £300,000 for just one of the defendants has paid for legal fees.....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on March 21, 2018, 09:28:42 AM
Is it true that the taxi driver saw blood on the girls trousers?

Is it true that there are two 'lads' clubs in Ulster Rugby who race each other for the most conquests?

Is it true that a rugby loving policeman tipped off the Ulster Rugby management , giving Jackson and co time to wipe their phones and destroy their clothing?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 21, 2018, 09:32:52 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 21, 2018, 09:13:27 AM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 21, 2018, 08:39:21 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 05:20:25 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 21, 2018, 12:56:51 AM
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.

I did hear a rumour her parents work in the field - dad either a judge or barrister and mum a solicitor.  (could be b*llshit though)
Dunno about that, but she came across as extremely well coached. She had pre-prepared lines for whenever she was accused of an inconsistency or whenever the defense lawyers were stating or implying something she disagreed with. She seemed to elaborate whenever she could, rather than sticking to Yes/No answers. Overall it seemed to me that she had a confident and coherent answer for pretty much every single question asked. The exact way I'd want to be if I was being questioned in court.

I've no doubt Jackson came across well. Anytime he's been interviewed he comes across as very likeable. Whether you believe the message is another story.
The issue with all the lads testimonies was the inconsistencies. I think the difference between Jackson and Olding could probably be explained by drink. McIlroy is pure fantasy! It would seem that there was never a time when the 4 lads and the 4 (or more) lawyers got in a room to come up with a strategy. Unless the strategy was to come up with 4 independent strategies!

Not sure if you were serious Hound but I was wondering if this would this be a valid approach for the defendants collectively to come up with? i.e. have such a complex/inconsistent/we were drunk  story between the four that the jury not only has to decide if they believe the girl or not but also which version of the defendants stories is valid? Certainly creates additional doubt but would strike me as unlikely/high risk. Is the more likely scenario "every man for himself"?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 09:37:20 AM
Quote from: Orior on March 21, 2018, 09:28:42 AM
Is it true that the taxi driver saw blood on the girls trousers?

Is it true that there are two 'lads' clubs in Ulster Rugby who race each other for the most conquests?

Is it true that a rugby loving policeman tipped off the Ulster Rugby management , giving Jackson and co time to wipe their phones and destroy their clothing?

1.  I think there was a stain (blood?) on his car seat.
2.  No idea
3.  No idea.  The PSNI contacted Ulster Rugby supposedly to ask Jackson and Olding to attend at a police station.  I'm not sure (can't remember) if they contacted McIlroy and Harrison directly.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 21, 2018, 10:21:28 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 09:37:20 AM
Quote from: Orior on March 21, 2018, 09:28:42 AM
Is it true that the taxi driver saw blood on the girls trousers?

Is it true that there are two 'lads' clubs in Ulster Rugby who race each other for the most conquests?

Is it true that a rugby loving policeman tipped off the Ulster Rugby management , giving Jackson and co time to wipe their phones and destroy their clothing?

1.  I think there was a stain (blood?) on his car seat.
2.  No idea
3.  No idea.  The PSNI contacted Ulster Rugby supposedly to ask Jackson and Olding to attend at a police station.  I'm not sure (can't remember) if they contacted McIlroy and Harrison directly.

Heard from a relative of mine who lives close to Belfast that apparently hiding handbags in his bedroom is a regular tactic for PJ. Most likely BS too.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 21, 2018, 10:29:47 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 09:37:20 AM
Quote from: Orior on March 21, 2018, 09:28:42 AM
Is it true that the taxi driver saw blood on the girls trousers?

Is it true that there are two 'lads' clubs in Ulster Rugby who race each other for the most conquests?

Is it true that a rugby loving policeman tipped off the Ulster Rugby management , giving Jackson and co time to wipe their phones and destroy their clothing?

1.  I think there was a stain (blood?) on his car seat.
2.  No idea
3.  No idea.  The PSNI contacted Ulster Rugby supposedly to ask Jackson and Olding to attend at a police station.  I'm not sure (can't remember) if they contacted McIlroy and Harrison directly.

1. The big unknown is whether it was menstrual or not. Examining doctor said it wasn't. Defence doctor said the examining doctor was borderline incompetent because of the pictures he took, and that if the pictures were taken properly it could have likely proven one way or other where the blood came from. She said that a 1cm cut could not have produced that amount of blood in her opinion.
2. Completely irrelevant! And utterly widespread I'd imagine.
3. I thought it was very unusual the cops went to their employers first. Les Kiss called Paddy Jackson to say police are here, you need to come here now. I didnt see it as being done that way for their benefit, but maybe others see it differently.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 21, 2018, 10:34:22 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 21, 2018, 10:21:28 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 09:37:20 AM
Quote from: Orior on March 21, 2018, 09:28:42 AM
Is it true that the taxi driver saw blood on the girls trousers?

Is it true that there are two 'lads' clubs in Ulster Rugby who race each other for the most conquests?

Is it true that a rugby loving policeman tipped off the Ulster Rugby management , giving Jackson and co time to wipe their phones and destroy their clothing?

1.  I think there was a stain (blood?) on his car seat.
2.  No idea
3.  No idea.  The PSNI contacted Ulster Rugby supposedly to ask Jackson and Olding to attend at a police station.  I'm not sure (can't remember) if they contacted McIlroy and Harrison directly.

Heard from a relative of mine who lives close to Belfast that apparently hiding handbags in his bedroom is a regular tactic for PJ. Most likely BS too.

So he takes handbags from the living room and puts them in his bedroom?

Girl says: Where's my handbag gone?
PJ: I've no idea. But maybe you should check my bedroom.  ;D

"Most likely BS too" !!

Utterly ridiculous

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 11:27:30 AM
the old, hide the handbag in the bed room routine, I still try that but the wife is getting worried that I'll be trying on her dresses next
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 21, 2018, 11:33:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 11:27:30 AM
the old, hide the handbag in the bed room routine, I still try that but the wife is getting worried that I'll be trying on her dresses next

Nearly as bad as my dad's old, 'off to get the milk and papers' Sunday morning routine, you don't usually see him then until 1800 or shortly after, paperless and seems to have drank everything but the milk  ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: theskull1 on March 21, 2018, 11:35:02 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 11:27:30 AM
the old, hide the handbag in the bed room routine, I still try that but the wife is getting worried that I'll be trying on her dresses next

Got from the GAA referee coaching manual MR? Teaching youse how to become (if not already) devious hoorbags  ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 11:43:01 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 11:27:30 AM
the old, hide the handbag in the bed room routine, I still try that but the wife is getting worried that I'll be trying on her dresses next

Don't be at it MR2, it's awful hard to explain :-[
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 11:43:15 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 21, 2018, 10:21:28 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 09:37:20 AM
Quote from: Orior on March 21, 2018, 09:28:42 AM
Is it true that the taxi driver saw blood on the girls trousers?

Is it true that there are two 'lads' clubs in Ulster Rugby who race each other for the most conquests?

Is it true that a rugby loving policeman tipped off the Ulster Rugby management , giving Jackson and co time to wipe their phones and destroy their clothing?

1.  I think there was a stain (blood?) on his car seat.
2.  No idea
3.  No idea.  The PSNI contacted Ulster Rugby supposedly to ask Jackson and Olding to attend at a police station.  I'm not sure (can't remember) if they contacted McIlroy and Harrison directly.

Heard from a relative of mine who lives close to Belfast that apparently hiding handbags in his bedroom is a regular tactic for PJ. Most likely BS too.
Fair play for posting it anyway Seanie. Imagine your reaction if someone posted a rumour that denigrated the girl in a similar way. As long as it was followed by "Most likely BS too" you'd be grand with it no doubt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 21, 2018, 11:58:56 AM
I think that was Seanie's point lads.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 12:07:23 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 21, 2018, 11:35:02 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 11:27:30 AM
the old, hide the handbag in the bed room routine, I still try that but the wife is getting worried that I'll be trying on her dresses next

Got from the GAA referee coaching manual MR? Teaching youse how to become (if not already) devious hoorbags  ;)

I'm still waiting on the brown envelope in the ref's room,generally the only thing brown in there is someones pooh!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 21, 2018, 12:08:41 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 21, 2018, 11:58:56 AM
I think that was Seanie's point lads.

Exactly.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 12:22:30 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 21, 2018, 11:58:56 AM
I think that was Seanie's point lads.
There is a double standard though. Numerous rumours have been posted on this thread about Jackson's womanising ways and the regular goings on at his house. If for example,  someone posted a rumour they'd  heard that the girl was mad for it but inclined to be remorseful about it in the morning, they'd be absolutely set upon.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 21, 2018, 12:43:30 PM
Olding's QC makes a very interesting point. . . the police totally fudged this whole thing from the start!!.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 12:55:43 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 21, 2018, 12:43:30 PM
Olding's QC makes a very interesting point. . . the police totally fudged this whole thing from the start!!.
Absolutely. The part about the girl only mentioning Dara Florence after the interview and not being brought straight back in to be interviewed about that could have been enough on it's own to have the case thrown out. When you see the tiny technicalities that other charges are dropped over, I'm surprised it hasn't been.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 12:55:52 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 21, 2018, 12:43:30 PM
Olding's QC makes a very interesting point. . . the police totally fudged this whole thing from the start!!.

He has a point.  The Keystone Cops PSNI don't come out of his well.

O'Donoghue describes Olding as "a reliable historian, despite the alcohol intake" ???
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 21, 2018, 01:03:56 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 21, 2018, 09:28:42 AM
Is it true that the taxi driver saw blood on the girls trousers?

Is it true that there are two 'lads' clubs in Ulster Rugby who race each other for the most conquests?

Is it true that a rugby loving policeman tipped off the Ulster Rugby management , giving Jackson and co time to wipe their phones and destroy their clothing?
Is it true that you are a gobshite?  YES
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on March 21, 2018, 01:09:18 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 12:22:30 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 21, 2018, 11:58:56 AM
I think that was Seanie's point lads.
There is a double standard though. Numerous rumours have been posted on this thread about Jackson's womanising ways and the regular goings on at his house. If for example,  someone posted a rumour they'd  heard that the girl was mad for it but inclined to be remorseful about it in the morning, they'd be absolutely set upon.

It is a double standard, I was asked to take down a post, which I had no hesitation in doing but the defendants are fair game it seems.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 21, 2018, 01:11:05 PM
"Defendants are fair game"

He's ripping the piss out of you.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 21, 2018, 01:23:05 PM
Impressive closing by Olding's counsel. His case by far the easiest to conclude on.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 01:31:37 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 21, 2018, 01:11:05 PM
"Defendants are fair game"

He's ripping the piss out of you.
There have been lots of rumours posted about the defendants and they do seem to be fair game. No one called for any of them to be deleted.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 21, 2018, 01:37:07 PM
What rumours? I think someone did get pulled up on a rumour about them having 'previous'. I'm the one who asked Dinny to take down the post he had up, although actually I think I said something like 'Are you sure about that, if not maybe you should take it down...'
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 21, 2018, 01:43:32 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 21, 2018, 11:33:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 11:27:30 AM
the old, hide the handbag in the bed room routine, I still try that but the wife is getting worried that I'll be trying on her dresses next

Nearly as bad as my dad's old, 'off to get the milk and papers' Sunday morning routine, you don't usually see him then until 1800 or shortly after, paperless and seems to have drank everything but the milk  ;)

The best laugh I have had on here for a long time.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 21, 2018, 01:37:07 PM
What rumours? I think someone did get pulled up on a rumour about them having 'previous'. I'm the one who asked Dinny to take down the post he had up, although actually I think I said something like 'Are you sure about that, if not maybe you should take it down...'
There was a lot more than one rumour about the men's previous, about their reputation within Ulster Rugby circles, about conquest competitions, about PJs house being known as a knocking shop etc. Not to mention him being flat out called a rapist regularly on the thread without anyone suggesting it be deleted. This isn't aimed at you AZ. I think you were doing Dinny a favour knowing the culture.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 21, 2018, 02:50:16 PM
As expected the closing arguments tearing the girl to shreds.

If Dara Florence has said she didn't think she witnessed a rape then how can you convict lads beyond reasonable doubt??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 21, 2018, 02:54:50 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 21, 2018, 02:50:16 PM
As expected the closing arguments tearing the girl to shreds.

If Dara Florence has said she didn't think she witnessed a rape then how can you convict lads beyond reasonable doubt??

You can't.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 03:01:42 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 21, 2018, 02:50:16 PM
As expected the closing arguments tearing the girl to shreds.

If Dara Florence has said she didn't think she witnessed a rape then how can you convict lads beyond reasonable doubt??
She's never seen a rape. She never saw a threesome even. She's not what could be called an expert.
And she only had a gawk for less than a minute.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:03:08 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 21, 2018, 02:50:16 PM
As expected the closing arguments tearing the girl to shreds.

If Dara Florence has said she didn't think she witnessed a rape then how can you convict lads beyond reasonable doubt??

I suppose the question DF has to answer then is "What does a rape look like?"

Also if you accept her evidence as gospel then Jackson is lying about the nature of his engagement with the complainant.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 21, 2018, 03:03:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 03:01:42 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 21, 2018, 02:50:16 PM
As expected the closing arguments tearing the girl to shreds.

If Dara Florence has said she didn't think she witnessed a rape then how can you convict lads beyond reasonable doubt??
She's never seen a rape. She never saw a threesome even. She's not what could be called an expert.
And she only had a gawk for less than a minute.

how do you know either of these assumptions unless you are her or have personally asked her?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 03:06:04 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 21, 2018, 03:03:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 03:01:42 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 21, 2018, 02:50:16 PM
As expected the closing arguments tearing the girl to shreds.

If Dara Florence has said she didn't think she witnessed a rape then how can you convict lads beyond reasonable doubt??
She's never seen a rape. She never saw a threesome even. She's not what could be called an expert.
And she only had a gawk for less than a minute.

how do you know either of these assumptions unless you are her or have personally asked her?
She told a friend she had just seen her first threesome OMG
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 21, 2018, 03:07:38 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 03:06:04 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 21, 2018, 03:03:41 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 03:01:42 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 21, 2018, 02:50:16 PM
As expected the closing arguments tearing the girl to shreds.

If Dara Florence has said she didn't think she witnessed a rape then how can you convict lads beyond reasonable doubt??
She's never seen a rape. She never saw a threesome even. She's not what could be called an expert.
And she only had a gawk for less than a minute.

how do you know either of these assumptions unless you are her or have personally asked her?
She told a friend she had just seen her first threesome OMG

Wrong - After closing the bedroom door she said she laughed and told her friend: "I have just seen a threesome."
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 03:08:38 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 03:01:42 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 21, 2018, 02:50:16 PM
As expected the closing arguments tearing the girl to shreds.

If Dara Florence has said she didn't think she witnessed a rape then how can you convict lads beyond reasonable doubt??
She's never seen a rape. She never saw a threesome even. She's not what could be called an expert.
And she only had a gawk for less than a minute.

Count out in your head 45 seconds, or open a door in the office and look in and count 45 seconds..

Ive never seen a rape before but if i looked for that amount of time and was asked whether i wanted to join in, I think that I'd know what was going on.. Hey thats just me
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:18:13 PM
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)?

Also before Florence gave evidence Emily Docherty testified that Jackson denied to her that a threesome had occurred.  DF saw a threesome involving Jackson, so if she is the key witness and is 100% accurate then it could lead you to conclude that Jackson is lying about a threesome taking place, lying about penetrating the girl with his penis making his account less credible??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:34:32 PM
From what I've seen none of the defence barristers have referred in great detail to any evidence given by their clients, they are all concentrating on damaging the complainant's credibility.

Edit: But of course the reports can't cover all of a 3 or 4 hour closing speech
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 03:40:04 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:18:13 PM
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 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)?

Also before Florence gave evidence Emily Docherty testified that Jackson denied to her that a threesome had occurred.  DF saw a threesome involving Jackson, so if she is the key witness and is 100% accurate then it could lead you to conclude that Jackson is lying about a threesome taking place, lying about penetrating the girl with his penis making his account less credible??
Jackson was asked if he agreed with DF and he said she was wrong on the penetration.
I think the 3 defendants all switched  their position ex post
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:46:02 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 03:40:04 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:18:13 PM
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 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)?

Also before Florence gave evidence Emily Docherty testified that Jackson denied to her that a threesome had occurred.  DF saw a threesome involving Jackson, so if she is the key witness and is 100% accurate then it could lead you to conclude that Jackson is lying about a threesome taking place, lying about penetrating the girl with his penis making his account less credible??
Jackson was asked if he agreed with DF and he said she was wrong on the penetration.
I think the 3 defendants all switched  their position ex post

So Jackson's assertion is that Dara Florence is wrong on a key piece of evidence?  If Jacko is right then DF's credibility is in question.  If that's true then the "it didn't look like a rape" evidence is called into question?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on March 21, 2018, 03:49:59 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:46:02 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 03:40:04 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:18:13 PM
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 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)?

Also before Florence gave evidence Emily Docherty testified that Jackson denied to her that a threesome had occurred.  DF saw a threesome involving Jackson, so if she is the key witness and is 100% accurate then it could lead you to conclude that Jackson is lying about a threesome taking place, lying about penetrating the girl with his penis making his account less credible??
Jackson was asked if he agreed with DF and he said she was wrong on the penetration.
I think the 3 defendants all switched  their position ex post

So Jackson's assertion is that Dara Florence is wrong on a key piece of evidence?  If Jacko is right then DF's credibility is in question.  If that's true then the "it didn't look like a rape" evidence is called into question?

I don't think everything is so black and white. If this = that then x=y. The truth is probably in the grey areas in-between. It is so difficult to follow given we are hearing about 25% of the total evidence at best.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:53:37 PM
Quote from: trailer on March 21, 2018, 03:49:59 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:46:02 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 03:40:04 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:18:13 PM
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 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)?

Also before Florence gave evidence Emily Docherty testified that Jackson denied to her that a threesome had occurred.  DF saw a threesome involving Jackson, so if she is the key witness and is 100% accurate then it could lead you to conclude that Jackson is lying about a threesome taking place, lying about penetrating the girl with his penis making his account less credible??
Jackson was asked if he agreed with DF and he said she was wrong on the penetration.
I think the 3 defendants all switched  their position ex post

So Jackson's assertion is that Dara Florence is wrong on a key piece of evidence?  If Jacko is right then DF's credibility is in question.  If that's true then the "it didn't look like a rape" evidence is called into question?

I don't think everything is so black and white. If this = that then x=y. The truth is probably in the grey areas in-between. It is so difficult to follow given we are hearing about 25% of the total evidence at best.

Maybe, but either Jackson had full sex with the girl or he didn't.  DF says she was "100% sure" (her words) Jackson was having sex with the alleged victim.  What's the grey area there? 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:59:42 PM
McIlroy's barrister having a go at the PSNI too
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:18:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 04:18:37 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:18:13 PM
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!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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.     
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 04:28:28 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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.     

The system for all its flaws is a good one, especially if you're charged with something you didn't do! 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 04:33:55 PM
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""
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:42:33 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:47:37 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 04:18:37 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:18:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 21, 2018, 05:00:58 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 04:33:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 05:19:49 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:47:37 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 04:18:37 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 21, 2018, 03:18:13 PM
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
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 05:22:36 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:42:33 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on March 21, 2018, 05:35:27 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 05:22:36 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:42:33 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 05:50:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 21, 2018, 06:06:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 06:07:29 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 05:50:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:12:27 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 05:20:25 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 21, 2018, 12:56:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 06:19:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 21, 2018, 06:06:13 PM
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"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: OnTheLine on March 21, 2018, 06:58:11 PM
I'm not going to comment on the case per se here, but did anyone find the following quote from Olding's barrister extremely offensive? 
"A lot of middle class girls were downstairs, they were not going to tolerate a rape or anything like that."
So, working class girls would tolerate rape? I just find it bizarre (and indicative of the bubble the 'professional classes' are in) that anyone would make that comment. Surely the jury isn't entirely made up of 'nice' middle-class people?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 07:22:47 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:42:33 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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
How would the evidence compare to that in other rape trials ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on March 21, 2018, 07:26:32 PM
Quote from: OnTheLine on March 21, 2018, 06:58:11 PM
I'm not going to comment on the case per se here, but did anyone find the following quote from Olding's barrister extremely offensive? 
"A lot of middle class girls were downstairs, they were not going to tolerate a rape or anything like that."
So, working class girls would tolerate rape? I just find it bizarre (and indicative of the bubble the 'professional classes' are in) that anyone would make that comment. Surely the jury isn't entirely made up of 'nice' middle-class people?

Good point sir... was very elitist comment and by reason wud suggest working class girls dont have the same standards.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 07:43:23 PM
Very interesting line of thought condensed to Mrs McIlroy shops at Marks n Sparks ergo junior is nor guilty.


https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/blane-mcilroy-has-put-his-parents-through-the-ringer-rugby-rape-trial-hears-36730189.html

Blane McIlroy has put his "parents through the ringer", his defence counsel has said.

Given his background and character they would expect he would tell them the truth, the court was told.

Mr Harvey said: "Mr McIlroy has told the truth. The truth is simply not compatible with the account of (the complainant)."

Another piss poor argument:


the QC asked whether or not it was possible that McIlroy "deliberately lied to his parents and deliberately manufactured an account he would then deliver to the police over the course of 12 interviews."


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 07:56:50 PM
Quote from: OnTheLine on March 21, 2018, 06:58:11 PM
I'm not going to comment on the case per se here, but did anyone find the following quote from Olding's barrister extremely offensive? 
"A lot of middle class girls were downstairs, they were not going to tolerate a rape or anything like that."
So, working class girls would tolerate rape? I just find it bizarre (and indicative of the bubble the 'professional classes' are in) that anyone would make that comment. Surely the jury isn't entirely made up of 'nice' middle-class people?
Very good point.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 07:22:47 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:42:33 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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
How would the evidence compare to that in other rape trials ?
I think DF walking in would make this a very unusual rape case. It's not your typical her word versus his case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 08:09:01 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 07:22:47 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:42:33 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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
How would the evidence compare to that in other rape trials ?
I think DF walking in would make this a very unusual rape case. It's not your typical her word versus his case.
The witness who contradicts Jackson's claim there was sex at all.

Asal Bore.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 08:15:27 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.

Excellently put
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 08:28:27 PM
Quote from: longballin on March 21, 2018, 07:26:32 PM
Quote from: OnTheLine on March 21, 2018, 06:58:11 PM
I'm not going to comment on the case per se here, but did anyone find the following quote from Olding's barrister extremely offensive? 
"A lot of middle class girls were downstairs, they were not going to tolerate a rape or anything like that."
So, working class girls would tolerate rape? I just find it bizarre (and indicative of the bubble the 'professional classes' are in) that anyone would make that comment. Surely the jury isn't entirely made up of 'nice' middle-class people?

Good point sir... was very elitist comment and by reason wud suggest working class girls dont have the same standards.

Or intellect I think is the way he was going with that statement..

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 08:33:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 08:28:27 PM
Quote from: longballin on March 21, 2018, 07:26:32 PM
Quote from: OnTheLine on March 21, 2018, 06:58:11 PM
I'm not going to comment on the case per se here, but did anyone find the following quote from Olding's barrister extremely offensive? 
"A lot of middle class girls were downstairs, they were not going to tolerate a rape or anything like that."
So, working class girls would tolerate rape? I just find it bizarre (and indicative of the bubble the 'professional classes' are in) that anyone would make that comment. Surely the jury isn't entirely made up of 'nice' middle-class people?

Good point sir... was very elitist comment and by reason wud suggest working class girls dont have the same standards.

Or intellect I think is the way he was going with that statement..

So working class people aren't smart enough to know rape is bad?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 08:41:39 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 08:09:01 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 21, 2018, 07:22:47 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 21, 2018, 04:42:33 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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
How would the evidence compare to that in other rape trials ?
I think DF walking in would make this a very unusual rape case. It's not your typical her word versus his case.
The witness who contradicts Jackson's claim there was sex at all.

Asal Bore.
I don't believe Jackson's claim that he didn't have sex with her. As gallsman said it would be ludicrous to believe he invited someone else to join in if he couldn't get it up and was engaging in dry humping. Parts of the girl's story are equally ludicrous. Not guilty for PJ and SO is the only verdict.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 08:43:19 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 21, 2018, 06:06:13 PM
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.

It was under a minute. It could be 10 or 50 .. if I open a door in a room and someone is having sex I could make a quick call on that, and whether it's the correct call it's still my view, as it's DF's view as it's your view and others
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 08:45:08 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 08:15:27 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.

Excellently put

Thank you and conveniently ignored....as always.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Over the Bar on March 21, 2018, 08:45:32 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.

While I'm sure the vast majority of solicitors are fine fellows indeed those like Mr Loophole and John Terry's racism-charge defence lawyer give the profession a very bad image.   Stone-wall guilt can, for a price, be refracted through a prism of fantasy and presented in such a way to sufficiently blur the lines to make a 'beyond reasonable doubt' conviction unlikely.   
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 08:51:38 PM
That's escalated quickly! Corrupt solicitors now!

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: bennydorano on March 21, 2018, 09:18:39 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 08:45:08 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 08:15:27 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.

Excellently put

Thank you and conveniently ignored....as always.
I'm amazed you think you know more than Syferus on any subject ever tbh
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2018, 09:21:05 PM
Syferus has full on blinkers!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on March 21, 2018, 09:28:04 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.
Get that wee gimp some aloe vera for that burn ;D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 21, 2018, 09:28:17 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 08:45:08 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 08:15:27 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.

Excellently put

Thank you and conveniently ignored....as always.

was just going to say the same - ignore function for that guys folks
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Square Ball on March 21, 2018, 10:43:21 PM
Wtf, did i hear this correctly. Why did she not cry out, there were a lot of middle class girls down stairs who would not tolerate rape. It was something like that, so just middle class girls wont tolorate rape?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rois on March 21, 2018, 11:00:37 PM
Thought the same Square Ball - that can't have been reported right, can it?

"middle class girls downstairs, they were not going to tolerate rape"

O'Donoghue may be a straight and honorable man, but that's a completely bizzare statement. 
Perhaps it plays to the make-up of the jury?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 11:04:24 PM
Quote from: Rois on March 21, 2018, 11:00:37 PM
Thought the same Square Ball - that can't have been reported right, can it?

"middle class girls downstairs, they were not going to tolerate rape"

O'Donoghue may be a straight and honorable man, but that's a completely bizzare statement. 
Perhaps it plays to the make-up of the jury?

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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Square Ball on March 21, 2018, 11:09:44 PM
http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/national/16102904.Rape_accused_rugby_star____has_told_the_truth__warts_and_all___/#

Indeed he did, a tad odd
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on March 21, 2018, 11:31:28 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 11:04:24 PM
Quote from: Rois on March 21, 2018, 11:00:37 PM
Thought the same Square Ball - that can't have been reported right, can it?

"middle class girls downstairs, they were not going to tolerate rape"

O'Donoghue may be a straight and honorable man, but that's a completely bizzare statement. 
Perhaps it plays to the make-up of the jury?

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.

Sounds like a prize cnut, grounded or not tactic or not
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 11:39:48 PM
Quote from: Square Ball on March 21, 2018, 11:09:44 PM
http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/national/16102904.Rape_accused_rugby_star____has_told_the_truth__warts_and_all___/#

Indeed he did, a tad odd

When I read this quote my immediate reaction was, rightly or wrongly, what a pompous individual.

This entire trial undoubtedly involves middle class professionals on all sides but to insinuate that persons lower down the class scale would be less likely to tolerate a rape, is very judgemental at best and I would suggest is not based on fact either. I don't understand why he brought class into the likelihood of them calling rape, maybe in fact it was a tactic as bc states.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rois on March 21, 2018, 11:47:03 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 11:04:24 PM

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. 

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 07:28:02 AM
Quote from: Rois on March 21, 2018, 11:47:03 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 11:04:24 PM

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.

But that won't stop the ones who have convicted them from the start..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 22, 2018, 07:52:59 AM
I wonder how many pages we'll get after the judgement as plenty of people will think it's a miscarriage of justice whatever way it goes.

For the legal lads, if the players get off and she waives her right to anonymity to make a few quid in the press, and talks about the case in words that portray the players as guilty regardless of verdict, could the players take her on?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 22, 2018, 07:57:43 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 22, 2018, 07:52:59 AM
I wonder how many pages we'll get after the judgement as plenty of people will think it's a miscarriage of justice whatever way it goes.

For the legal lads, if the players get off and she waives her right to anonymity to make a few quid in the press, and talks about the case in words that portray the players as guilty regardless of verdict, could the players take her on?

Do you mean in terms of defamation?  Depends what she says. Allegations made in the course of criminal trials are protected. As are repetition of same so I would imagine it's unlikely.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: theskull1 on March 22, 2018, 07:58:57 AM
Are some not being a tad snowflakey about yer mans 'very middle class girls dowstairs' comment?

I see a lot of people reading into what he didn't say.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 22, 2018, 08:01:08 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 22, 2018, 07:57:43 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 22, 2018, 07:52:59 AM
I wonder how many pages we'll get after the judgement as plenty of people will think it's a miscarriage of justice whatever way it goes.

For the legal lads, if the players get off and she waives her right to anonymity to make a few quid in the press, and talks about the case in words that portray the players as guilty regardless of verdict, could the players take her on?

Do you mean in terms of defamation?  Depends what she says. Allegations made in the course of criminal trials are protected. As are repetition of same so I would imagine it's unlikely.
Yes re. defamation. Seems unfair that you could still repeat allegations in public after a case is over and the defendants are trying to get on with their lives.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 22, 2018, 08:02:28 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 22, 2018, 08:01:08 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 22, 2018, 07:57:43 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 22, 2018, 07:52:59 AM
I wonder how many pages we'll get after the judgement as plenty of people will think it's a miscarriage of justice whatever way it goes.

For the legal lads, if the players get off and she waives her right to anonymity to make a few quid in the press, and talks about the case in words that portray the players as guilty regardless of verdict, could the players take her on?

Do you mean in terms of defamation?  Depends what she says. Allegations made in the course of criminal trials are protected. As are repetition of same so I would imagine it's unlikely.
Yes re. defamation. Seems unfair that you could still repeat allegations in public after a case is over and the defendants are trying to get on with their lives.

Rape apologist
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Farrandeelin on March 22, 2018, 08:17:13 AM
Syf still hasn't addressed bcb's post. If it was anyone else he'd be over it like a rash.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 08:34:16 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 22, 2018, 08:17:13 AM
Syf still hasn't addressed bcb's post. If it was anyone else he'd be over it like a rash.

He is a rash
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 22, 2018, 08:57:44 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 08:34:16 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 22, 2018, 08:17:13 AM
Syf still hasn't addressed bcb's post. If it was anyone else he'd be over it like a rash.

He is a rash
Beidh sé a rash arís
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 22, 2018, 09:31:49 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 22, 2018, 07:58:57 AM
Are some not being a tad snowflakey about yer mans 'very middle class girls dowstairs' comment?

I see a lot of people reading into what he didn't say.

Brendan Kelly QC asked the lady in question if she had told police "this kind of thing doesn't happen to a girl like me" during the course of his questioning. Looks like he's making it clear those girls were approachable to help?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on March 22, 2018, 09:32:43 AM
Quote from: Rois on March 21, 2018, 11:47:03 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 11:04:24 PM

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
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 22, 2018, 09:54:09 AM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 22, 2018, 09:32:43 AM
Quote from: Rois on March 21, 2018, 11:47:03 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 11:04:24 PM

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 .
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: passedit on March 22, 2018, 12:01:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:15:01 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 22, 2018, 12:01:22 PM
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
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 12:17:10 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:15:01 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 22, 2018, 12:01:22 PM
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?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:21:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 12:17:10 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:15:01 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 22, 2018, 12:01:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:28:02 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:21:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 12:17:10 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:15:01 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 22, 2018, 12:01:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 22, 2018, 12:30:24 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:28:02 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:21:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 12:17:10 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:15:01 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 22, 2018, 12:01:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 22, 2018, 12:30:35 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 22, 2018, 12:01:22 PM
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!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on March 22, 2018, 12:36:59 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 22, 2018, 09:54:09 AM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 22, 2018, 09:32:43 AM
Quote from: Rois on March 21, 2018, 11:47:03 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 11:04:24 PM

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..........
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:37:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 22, 2018, 12:30:24 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:28:02 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:21:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 12:17:10 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:15:01 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 22, 2018, 12:01:22 PM
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!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
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!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: passedit on March 22, 2018, 12:45:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:51:40 PM
Closing speeches now complete. Judges directions and then deliberation time for the jury. Big day tomorrow!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 22, 2018, 12:52:47 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
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!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:53:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:37:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 22, 2018, 12:30:24 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:28:02 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:21:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 12:17:10 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:15:01 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 22, 2018, 12:01:22 PM
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



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 22, 2018, 12:53:58 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:51:40 PM
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!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:55:07 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 22, 2018, 12:53:58 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:51:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 22, 2018, 12:56:29 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:55:07 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 22, 2018, 12:53:58 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:51:40 PM
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?? ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:58:33 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:53:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:37:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 22, 2018, 12:30:24 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:28:02 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:21:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 12:17:10 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:15:01 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 22, 2018, 12:01:22 PM
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!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Aristo 60 on March 22, 2018, 12:59:08 PM
Aye, get an oul poll up!  :o
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 01:04:54 PM
Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 22, 2018, 01:09:23 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 01:04:54 PM
Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.

OK, a poll on how long they'll get??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 22, 2018, 01:12:26 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 22, 2018, 12:01:22 PM
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.

Sat in a case not too unlike this about 5-6 years ago, not involving anyone of public profile. Judge wouldn't accept a majority decision (there was an issue involving the exact mental age the defendent in this case was operating at) which had resulted in a statemate wth regards to unanimous decision. The judge in the end had to direct the 2/3 unsure of what to do. In the end the guilty verdict was found, found correctly at that.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trueblue1234 on March 22, 2018, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 01:04:54 PM
Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.


I can just hear the posts being typed if they are convicted... 

" a lot of people on here are beginning to look very foolish"

"It's good to see the courts are morally stronger than some posters on here...."

" Oh dear, some peoples posts haven't aged well at all...."

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 01:26:29 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:21:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 12:17:10 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:15:01 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 22, 2018, 12:01:22 PM
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.

Aye he's bound to have known him or was approached, does this happen? though I'd say if he was robbing a bank he could have hardly offered him money!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 22, 2018, 01:34:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 01:26:29 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:21:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 12:17:10 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 22, 2018, 12:15:01 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 22, 2018, 12:01:22 PM
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.

Aye he's bound to have known him or was approached, does this happen? though I'd say if he was robbing a bank he could have hardly offered him money!!

He was robbing a chemist at the top of the Shankill !
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 22, 2018, 02:00:15 PM
How long are deliberations likely to last?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 22, 2018, 02:14:30 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 22, 2018, 02:00:15 PM
How long are deliberations likely to last?

God only knows, as long as it takes.

Some say that if the jury comes back quickly it's likely to be a guilty verdict and the longer it takes the more likely it is to be not guilty, or maybe that just in films!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on March 22, 2018, 02:22:27 PM
re-watched 12 Angry Men earlier in the week in anticipation of what will go on behind the scenes shortly;

I realise this has little relevance, but hey ho, hasn't stopped some of yis :)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 02:29:00 PM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on March 22, 2018, 02:22:27 PM
re-watched 12 Angry Men earlier in the week in anticipation of what will go on behind the scenes shortly;

I realise this has little relevance, but hey ho, hasn't stopped some of yis :)

Great film, yet to be bettered, UNTIL NOW!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on March 22, 2018, 03:47:14 PM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on March 22, 2018, 02:22:27 PM
re-watched 12 Angry Men earlier in the week in anticipation of what will go on behind the scenes shortly;

I realise this has little relevance, but hey ho, hasn't stopped some of yis :)

I watched re-runs of Ally McBeal, I think I could give this law malarkey a good go.

Syferus,
    What law school did you attend? What is the entrance criteria?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: NAG1 on March 22, 2018, 04:02:18 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 22, 2018, 03:47:14 PM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on March 22, 2018, 02:22:27 PM
re-watched 12 Angry Men earlier in the week in anticipation of what will go on behind the scenes shortly;

I realise this has little relevance, but hey ho, hasn't stopped some of yis :)

I watched re-runs of Ally McBeal, I think I could give this law malarkey a good go.

Syferus,
    What law school did you attend? What is the entrance criteria?

One of those Trump Universities  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 22, 2018, 04:03:03 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 22, 2018, 03:47:14 PM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on March 22, 2018, 02:22:27 PM
re-watched 12 Angry Men earlier in the week in anticipation of what will go on behind the scenes shortly;

I realise this has little relevance, but hey ho, hasn't stopped some of yis :)

I watched re-runs of Ally McBeal, I think I could give this law malarkey a good go.

Syferus,
    What law school did you attend? What is the entrance criteria?

I think he's a big fan of the good wife . . . lots of top lawyer stuff in that it obviously gave him a good grounding in it!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 22, 2018, 04:14:56 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 22, 2018, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 01:04:54 PM
Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.


I can just hear the posts being typed if they are convicted... 

" a lot of people on here are beginning to look very foolish"

"It's good to see the courts are morally stronger than some posters on here...."

" Oh dear, some peoples posts haven't aged well at all...."

If no one quotes him (among others) I'll never see them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 22, 2018, 05:58:24 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 08:45:08 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 08:15:27 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 21, 2018, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 21, 2018, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 21, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
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.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.

Excellently put

Thank you and conveniently ignored....as always.

I'm a bit disappointed to see you joining my fan club because you seemed like a pretty sound poster who wasn't swayed by the mob up until now. Regardless..

Let's make this very simple - do you really think there are not some very unscrupulous defence solicitors? I know plenty of those types of people in my field and the stakes are far lower than someone's liberty.

You and a few others seem to have an incredibly black and white approach on certain topics - saying someone can hire a defence solicitor that will do everything in his/her power to get their client off as long as they they think they can get away with it does not mean there aren't plenty of good, upstanding defence solicitors too. Why you'd conflate the two things I do not know.

Another obvious point is that those with deep pockets have a better chance of acquittal in pretty much every court system in existence. Why is that, BC1? To me it's pretty obvious that more money means better representation, and in many cases that better representation seems to mean pushing boundaries because the pay cheque and the stakes are higher for the solicitor too. Do you not accept that if you have a reputation for getting your clients off it means you can charge more for your services, and that the inverse is also true? To suggest that their de facto duty is simply to the justice system and not to their client in those situations is a bit strange, because the conflict of interest is quite plain for anyone to see.

The system pushes defence solicitors in that direction so it's probably more a fault in the system than the 'player', but to say it doesn't exist at all is frankly meaningless legalese.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 07:12:05 PM
Quote

I'm a bit disappointed to see you joining my fan club because you seemed like a pretty sound poster who wasn't swayed by the mob up until now. Regardless..

First things first, I'm not swayed by the 'mob'....I have taken great exception and insult from your denigration of the legal profession and the 'murky reality' that exists according to you. As someone who has worked in this reality I know that you're talking nonsense hence my attack on your post, I am standing up for my professions integrity and also the integrity of a number of my friends who are involved in this trial at counsel and solicitor level hence my desire to knock you down.

QuoteLet's make this very simple - do you really think there are not some very unscrupulous defence solicitors? I know plenty of those types of people in my field and the stakes are far lower than someone's liberty.

Unscrupulous?  What have scruples got to do with this?  If a solicitor can work within the boundaries of the law that exist and stretch those boundaries to get the better argument how is that unscrupulous? And what is unscrupulous anyway?  You give me examples of how they were unscrupulous in this trial and I will deal with them but on my opinion they all, prosecution and defence, did what was necessary and allowable within the system to do the best job for their clients. That's not unscrupulous, that's being professional and thorough.

QuoteYou and a few others seem to have an incredibly black and white approach on certain topics - saying someone can hire a defence solicitor that will do everything in his/her power to get their client off as long as they they think they can get away with it does not mean there aren't plenty of good, upstanding defence solicitors too. Why you'd conflate the two things I do not know.

See my previous point

QuoteAnother obvious point is that those with deep pockets have a better chance of acquittal in pretty much every court system in existence. Why is that, BC1? To me it's pretty obvious that more money means better representation, and in many cases that better representation seems to mean pushing boundaries because the pay cheque and the stakes are higher for the solicitor too. Do you not accept that if you have a reputation for getting your clients off it means you can charge more for your services, and that the inverse is also true? To suggest that their de facto duty is simply to the justice system and not to their client in those situations is a bit strange, because the conflict of interest is quite plain for anyone to see.

Pretty much every court system in existence?  How many have you studied in depth?  Seriously?  Answer me that. Here's what I'll tell you. If it was jimmy Jackson and unemployed druggie from the Shankill guess what....he would have 2 counsel available to him more than likely under legal aid. He would have Kevin Winters and Co or Joe Rice or any number of top criminal
Law firms as his Solicitors. They would have the same experts and same resources available to them as they would if they were paying for it themselves. This is not the USA where the Johnny Corchrane's of the world play celebrity attorneys with peoples lives. For all it's faults the justice system in Northern Ireland in particular is one of the most respected and robust ones that there is due to the fallout from miscarriages of justices over the years from the Troubles. It's not perfect but everyone has the same rights in the eyes of the law so you're talking through your arse about big pockets win decisions.

QuoteThe system pushes defence solicitors in that direction so it's probably more a fault in the system than the 'player', but to say it doesn't exist at all is frankly meaningless legalese.

The reality is that the Defence did everything within their remit and control to defend these men. They have a system to work within and used it to the best of their abilities for their clients. If you don't think it is the right system that's your opinion. Come up with a better one and be a law reformer. You have taken a very hardline approach on this subject and that is your right. I have taken an open minded one and thought at different times it could have gone either way. You don't know not do I what exactly happened. We form opinions and then debate them. Anyone who has had a contrary opinion to you has been shouted down and called an apologist or the like. That is the approach of a fundamentalist type mindset which is generally a weak point of view as it's never fully rounded nor is it allowed to be challenged therefor it does not have proper foundations. If these men are found guilty then that is the right decision, if they are found not guilty that too is the right decision as it has been made by the now 11 people who have sat through the evidence and made an informed decision. There may be legal appeal points but that's for another day.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 07:20:02 PM
Hmmm, let's see how long it takes to get a reply from Judge Rinder
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 22, 2018, 07:52:02 PM
Syferus- case in point about "money", O'Donoghue represented the wee scum bag from the Shankill when I was doing jury service, courtesy of legal aid.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 22, 2018, 08:34:30 PM
Bcb1 wins!!

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7qDEq2bMbcbPRQ2c/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Therealdonald on March 22, 2018, 08:51:49 PM
That was cold BCB. Syferus do you need a hug?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 22, 2018, 09:40:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 22, 2018, 08:57:44 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2018, 08:34:16 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 22, 2018, 08:17:13 AM
Syf still hasn't addressed bcb's post. If it was anyone else he'd be over it like a rash.

He is a rash
Beidh sé a rash arís

Very good  ;D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 22, 2018, 09:57:06 PM
Someone do the right thing and throw the towel in for the man.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on March 22, 2018, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
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!!!
I thought you would be more moved by rationality than emotion. Duffy's reference to a known public meeting place and language he used was plainly meant to appeal to emotion.
We do know that the accused are not the same as  you, why do you try and make them out to be the same as you?  People who have done a  stupid thing, a criminal action, can also follow up that stupid action with more stupidity. Why on earth would you even equate yourself to one who was complicit in covering up a rape?  And if there was some meeting to get an account straight, maybe it happened elsewhere. 
The "if i had just raped a girl why on  earth would I go on a soup run for the homeless?"  type argument  just appeals to the prejudice of people that a person who has a good appearance does not do bad things.  And yet the evidence points to the opposite.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 10:04:48 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 22, 2018, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
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!!!
I thought you would be more moved by rationality than emotion. Duffy's reference to a known public meeting place and language he used was plainly meant to appeal to emotion.
We do know that the accused are not the same as  Duffy, why does he try and make them out to be the same as him?  People who have done a  stupid thing, a criminal action, can also follow up that stupid action with more stupidity. Why on earth would Duffy even equate himself to one who was complicit in covering up a rape.  And if there was some meeting to get an account straight, maybe it happened elsewhere. 
The "if i had just raped a girl why on  earth would I go on a soup run for the homeless?"  type argument  just appeals to the prejudice of people that a person who has a good appearance does not do bad things.  And yet the evidence points to the opposite.

The last paragraph was my words not Gavan Duffy
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on March 22, 2018, 10:13:14 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 10:04:48 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 22, 2018, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
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!!!
I thought you would be more moved by rationality than emotion. Duffy's reference to a known public meeting place and language he used was plainly meant to appeal to emotion.
We do know that the accused are not the same as  Duffy, why does he try and make them out to be the same as him?  People who have done a  stupid thing, a criminal action, can also follow up that stupid action with more stupidity. Why on earth would Duffy even equate himself to one who was complicit in covering up a rape.  And if there was some meeting to get an account straight, maybe it happened elsewhere. 
The "if i had just raped a girl why on  earth would I go on a soup run for the homeless?"  type argument  just appeals to the prejudice of people that a person who has a good appearance does not do bad things.  And yet the evidence points to the opposite.

The last paragraph was my words not Gavan Duffy
I had edited my post to reflect that they were your words and not Duffy's as I had stated.
Perhaps I was too late or you were just ahead of the game.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 10:21:21 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 22, 2018, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
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!!!
I thought you would be more moved by rationality than emotion. Duffy's reference to a known public meeting place and language he used was plainly meant to appeal to emotion.
We do know that the accused are not the same as  you, why do you try and make them out to be the same as you?  People who have done a  stupid thing, a criminal action, can also follow up that stupid action with more stupidity. Why on earth would you even equate yourself to one who was complicit in covering up a rape?  And if there was some meeting to get an account straight, maybe it happened elsewhere. 
The "if i had just raped a girl why on  earth would I go on a soup run for the homeless?"  type argument  just appeals to the prejudice of people that a person who has a good appearance does not do bad things.  And yet the evidence points to the opposite.

It seems that their behaviour is not very logical if they are trying  to cover something up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 12:09:36 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
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!!!
I would say that I have agreed with nearly everything you have posted on this topic, and bow to your obvious superior knowledge of the legal system.  However, though it may be most unlikely that they met there the next day to orchestrate a cover up, I find it absolutely unbelievable that they didn't discuss any furore surrounding the incident involving the young women.
Do you believe the accused that this was not discussed?  Do you believe that Harrison never mentioned to them about what she text them?  Whatever about guilt or innocence I would find that implausible, in my opinion of course.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 12:31:32 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 22, 2018, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 01:04:54 PM
Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.


I can just hear the posts being typed if they are convicted... 

" a lot of people on here are beginning to look very foolish"

"It's good to see the courts are morally stronger than some posters on here...."

" Oh dear, some peoples posts haven't aged well at all...."
I would say you'd be correct, and any comments of this nature would be grossly unfair, given the difficulty of this case and how it has split opinion.  However there has been some comments on this thread, regardless of guilt or innocence that have been akin to the old "sure she was wearing a short skirt..." and worse.  It is only right that they be challenged and that shouldn't be confused with "hang them at dawn".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 06:57:04 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 12:09:36 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
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!!!
I would say that I have agreed with nearly everything you have posted on this topic, and bow to your obvious superior knowledge of the legal system.  However, though it may be most unlikely that they met there the next day to orchestrate a cover up, I find it absolutely unbelievable that they didn't discuss any furore surrounding the incident involving the young women.
Do you believe the accused that this was not discussed?  Do you believe that Harrison never mentioned to them about what she text them?  Whatever about guilt or innocence I would find that implausible, in my opinion of course.

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 07:32:31 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 12:31:32 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 22, 2018, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 01:04:54 PM
Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.


I can just hear the posts being typed if they are convicted... 

" a lot of people on here are beginning to look very foolish"

"It's good to see the courts are morally stronger than some posters on here...."

" Oh dear, some peoples posts haven't aged well at all...."
I would say you'd be correct, and any comments of this nature would be grossly unfair, given the difficulty of this case and how it has split opinion.  However there has been some comments on this thread, regardless of guilt or innocence that have been akin to the old "sure she was wearing a short skirt..." and worse.  It is only right that they be challenged and that shouldn't be confused with "hang them at dawn".

Show a post we're a poster said "sure she was wearing a skirt"  and besides I think she was wearing trousers
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trueblue1234 on March 23, 2018, 07:36:07 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 12:31:32 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 22, 2018, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 01:04:54 PM
Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.


I can just hear the posts being typed if they are convicted... 

" a lot of people on here are beginning to look very foolish"

"It's good to see the courts are morally stronger than some posters on here...."

" Oh dear, some peoples posts haven't aged well at all...."
I would say you'd be correct, and any comments of this nature would be grossly unfair, given the difficulty of this case and how it has split opinion.  However there has been some comments on this thread, regardless of guilt or innocence that have been akin to the old "sure she was wearing a short skirt..." and worse.  It is only right that they be challenged and that shouldn't be confused with "hang them at dawn".
Anyone who was saying the likes of above was in the same boat as Syf and had a decision formed before starting to look at the evidence. Both bad positions to take up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 08:16:36 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 07:32:31 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 12:31:32 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 22, 2018, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 01:04:54 PM
Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.


I can just hear the posts being typed if they are convicted... 

" a lot of people on here are beginning to look very foolish"

"It's good to see the courts are morally stronger than some posters on here...."

" Oh dear, some peoples posts haven't aged well at all...."
I would say you'd be correct, and any comments of this nature would be grossly unfair, given the difficulty of this case and how it has split opinion.  However there has been some comments on this thread, regardless of guilt or innocence that have been akin to the old "sure she was wearing a short skirt..." and worse.  It is only right that they be challenged and that shouldn't be confused with "hang them at dawn".

Show a post we're a poster said "sure she was wearing a skirt"  and besides I think she was wearing trousers
I said akin to.  If you don't think there was any inappropriate, sexist and embarrassing comments, that's fine.  Knock yourself out, I'm hardly going to change your views, but to me and I'm sure many others it's obvious.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 08:40:29 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 08:16:36 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 07:32:31 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 12:31:32 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 22, 2018, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 01:04:54 PM
Lord Chief Justice Syferus has already called it. No point in putting a poll up.


I can just hear the posts being typed if they are convicted... 

" a lot of people on here are beginning to look very foolish"

"It's good to see the courts are morally stronger than some posters on here...."

" Oh dear, some peoples posts haven't aged well at all...."
I would say you'd be correct, and any comments of this nature would be grossly unfair, given the difficulty of this case and how it has split opinion.  However there has been some comments on this thread, regardless of guilt or innocence that have been akin to the old "sure she was wearing a short skirt..." and worse.  It is only right that they be challenged and that shouldn't be confused with "hang them at dawn".

Show a post we're a poster said "sure she was wearing a skirt"  and besides I think she was wearing trousers
I said akin to.  If you don't think there was any inappropriate, sexist and embarrassing comments, that's fine.  Knock yourself out, I'm hardly going to change your views, but to me and I'm sure many others it's obvious.

If you think there are people on the thread that are apolgists for rape by saying sexist jokes/remarks then you knock yourself out, in fairness there hasnt been but that wont stop you or others looking for them
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 09:51:08 AM
Orior called her a stupid girl for going back to the house and into the bedroom.

If that isn't a "sure she brought it in herself" comment I'm not sure what is. Care to comment, MR2?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 10:05:09 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 09:51:08 AM
Orior called her a stupid girl for going back to the house and into the bedroom.

If that isn't a "sure she brought it in herself" comment I'm not sure what is. Care to comment, MR2?

If my daughter went back to a house on her own without her friends after drink taken I'd call her stupid...

Calling a girl stupid and saying she was asking for it is completley different, your intelligent enough to know the difference?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:26:07 AM
If you had an 18/19 year old daughter, would you not warn her about the dangers of drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 10:41:52 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:26:07 AM
If you had an 18/19 year old daughter, would you not warn her about the dangers of drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers?

You give them advice, you explain the dangers, you make them aware, and you hope they are sensible enough to know when to make excuses and leave... that in no way means that they will listen, or if its completely out of their hands, hope that they are not hurt or damaged mentally from a situation like the one we are talking about.

They are young adults that for most parts don't listen to you anyways (well they say that) they think you're old and wouldnt have a clue, thats kids for ya, but the basics hopefully have been set in for years with them and hopefully they will get through life with the minimum of fuss..

If they did find themselves in the position of this thread then we as a family would have to look at it, warts and all and make the right call..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 10:48:27 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:26:07 AM
If you had an 18/19 year old daughter, would you not warn her about the dangers of drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers?

Yes, but if she ended up being spit roasted against her will I probably wouldn't blame her for it.  Call me old fashioned if you like.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 23, 2018, 11:02:16 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 09:51:08 AM
Orior called her a stupid girl for going back to the house and into the bedroom.

If that isn't a "sure she brought it in herself" comment I'm not sure what is. Care to comment, MR2?

I think you will find that it was the girl herself who first used the words 'stupid girl' in relation to her actions, at least according to the front page of the following day's Newsletter
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:08:59 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 23, 2018, 11:02:16 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 09:51:08 AM
Orior called her a stupid girl for going back to the house and into the bedroom.

If that isn't a "sure she brought it in herself" comment I'm not sure what is. Care to comment, MR2?

I think you will find that it was the girl herself who first used the words 'stupid girl' in relation to her actions, at least according to the front page of the following day's Newsletter

I think you'll fin that that's got absolutely nothing to do with someone on here calling her a stupid girl?

If the girl was raped (note the "if" there), it was not because she was a stupid girl who decided to go to a house party rather than heading off home. It's because the lads are rapists. There is nothing more to it than that and anyone who can't see or understand that needs some serious f**king help.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 11:11:27 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 06:57:04 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 12:09:36 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
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!!!
I would say that I have agreed with nearly everything you have posted on this topic, and bow to your obvious superior knowledge of the legal system.  However, though it may be most unlikely that they met there the next day to orchestrate a cover up, I find it absolutely unbelievable that they didn't discuss any furore surrounding the incident involving the young women.
Do you believe the accused that this was not discussed?  Do you believe that Harrison never mentioned to them about what she text them?  Whatever about guilt or innocence I would find that implausible, in my opinion of course.

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!
yes, I have no doubt that is the case.  But is the other side of that not true?  That if the prosecution raises the question in jurors heads, that if they are surely lying about not talking about it, then what else could they be lying about? 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:14:54 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

Why? She was out for the night, made the acquaintance of some people, appeared to show an interest in one of them. Why is going back to the house a bad idea? She was a grown woman, capable of making her own choices.

Or perhaps you think woman should live their lives fearing the presence of rapists around every corner
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:16:38 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 11:11:27 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 06:57:04 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 12:09:36 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
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!!!
I would say that I have agreed with nearly everything you have posted on this topic, and bow to your obvious superior knowledge of the legal system.  However, though it may be most unlikely that they met there the next day to orchestrate a cover up, I find it absolutely unbelievable that they didn't discuss any furore surrounding the incident involving the young women.
Do you believe the accused that this was not discussed?  Do you believe that Harrison never mentioned to them about what she text them?  Whatever about guilt or innocence I would find that implausible, in my opinion of course.

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!
yes, I have no doubt that is the case.  But is the other side of that not true?  That if the prosecution raises the question in jurors heads, that if they are surely lying about not talking about it, then what else could they be lying about?

It is, but the burden of proof lies with the prosecution - they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to prove the innocence of their client, merely convince the jury that proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been achieved.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 23, 2018, 11:23:18 AM
I do get the point that you need not put yourself in dodgy situations, *however* this was a house party in a nice area with a couple of well known sports stars. She wasn't exactly walking down the Falls singing the Sash and throwing petrol bombs at the houses.

My instinct on this is that the girl was attracted to Jackson, probably went with him, but at some point began to get uncomfortable and things, or the lads, were too far gone to row back. I don't believe this will translate into a guilty verdict.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:30:01 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:14:54 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

Why? She was out for the night, made the acquaintance of some people, appeared to show an interest in one of them. Why is going back to the house a bad idea? She was a grown woman, capable of making her own choices.

Or perhaps you think woman should live their lives fearing the presence of rapists around every corner
As a father, I'm just being realistic about the dangers. If PJ seemed nice then later raped her, as per her version of events, then I suppose you're right but I'd still be warning my daughter against it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 11:31:25 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.
I am not saying you're wrong, but I'd be interested in how you ascertained that.  I would imagine, although I am open to correction, that young men are much more likely to be involved in assaults in these type of scenarios, ie. back to after parties with strangers/acquaintances.  Unless your equating "dangers" with only sexual assault?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:36:01 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:30:01 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:14:54 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

Why? She was out for the night, made the acquaintance of some people, appeared to show an interest in one of them. Why is going back to the house a bad idea? She was a grown woman, capable of making her own choices.

Or perhaps you think woman should live their lives fearing the presence of rapists around every corner
As a father, I'm just being realistic about the dangers. If PJ seemed nice then later raped her, as per her version of events, then I suppose you're right but I'd still be warning my daughter against it.

Against the danger of what though? Sex? Alcohol? Rape?

She was 19 year of age doing what 19 year olds do - go on nights out, drinking alcohol, exploring sexuality. If the "dangers" of that worry you, then I fear very much for your future. This is distinctly different from a father being uncomfortable with his daughter growing up.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 11:37:42 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:14:54 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

Why? She was out for the night, made the acquaintance of some people, appeared to show an interest in one of them. Why is going back to the house a bad idea? She was a grown woman, capable of making her own choices.

Or perhaps you think woman should live their lives fearing the presence of rapists around every corner

Will you be encouarging your daughters to make acquaintances with strangers and head back to their house for a 'party'
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:41:38 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:36:01 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:30:01 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:14:54 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

Why? She was out for the night, made the acquaintance of some people, appeared to show an interest in one of them. Why is going back to the house a bad idea? She was a grown woman, capable of making her own choices.

Or perhaps you think woman should live their lives fearing the presence of rapists around every corner
As a father, I'm just being realistic about the dangers. If PJ seemed nice then later raped her, as per her version of events, then I suppose you're right but I'd still be warning my daughter against it.

Against the danger of what though? Sex? Alcohol? Rape?

She was 19 year of age doing what 19 year olds do - go on nights out, drinking alcohol, exploring sexuality. If the "dangers" of that worry you, then I fear very much for your future. This is distinctly different from a father being uncomfortable with his daughter growing up.
If you wouldn't warn your daughter about the dangers of going back to a house full of strangers while drunk, good luck with it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 11:42:22 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:16:38 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 11:11:27 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 06:57:04 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 12:09:36 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
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!!!
I would say that I have agreed with nearly everything you have posted on this topic, and bow to your obvious superior knowledge of the legal system.  However, though it may be most unlikely that they met there the next day to orchestrate a cover up, I find it absolutely unbelievable that they didn't discuss any furore surrounding the incident involving the young women.
Do you believe the accused that this was not discussed?  Do you believe that Harrison never mentioned to them about what she text them?  Whatever about guilt or innocence I would find that implausible, in my opinion of course.

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!
yes, I have no doubt that is the case.  But is the other side of that not true?  That if the prosecution raises the question in jurors heads, that if they are surely lying about not talking about it, then what else could they be lying about?

It is, but the burden of proof lies with the prosecution - they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to prove the innocence of their client, merely convince the jury that proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been achieved.
Yes I understand that, I am merely pointing out that it can also be used as a tactic for the prosecution.  For the record from everything that I have read, I would agree that it doesn't look that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt.   I would say that in cases similar to this it would always be difficult to meet that bar, without some key piece of evidence.  As someone mentioned earlier, putting an innocent person behind bars would be considered the greatest tragedy in the justice system, and it is only right that the accused gets the benefit of that doubt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 23, 2018, 11:23:18 AM
I do get the point that you need not put yourself in dodgy situations, *however* this was a house party in a nice area with a couple of well known sports stars. She wasn't exactly walking down the Falls singing the Sash and throwing petrol bombs at the houses.

My instinct on this is that the girl was attracted to Jackson, probably went with him, but at some point began to get uncomfortable and things, or the lads, were too far gone to row back. I don't believe this will translate into a guilty verdict.
This might well be what happened which I think supports my point about warning your daughter against going to a house full of strangers.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:45:03 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:41:38 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:36:01 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:30:01 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:14:54 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

Why? She was out for the night, made the acquaintance of some people, appeared to show an interest in one of them. Why is going back to the house a bad idea? She was a grown woman, capable of making her own choices.

Or perhaps you think woman should live their lives fearing the presence of rapists around every corner
As a father, I'm just being realistic about the dangers. If PJ seemed nice then later raped her, as per her version of events, then I suppose you're right but I'd still be warning my daughter against it.

Against the danger of what though? Sex? Alcohol? Rape?

She was 19 year of age doing what 19 year olds do - go on nights out, drinking alcohol, exploring sexuality. If the "dangers" of that worry you, then I fear very much for your future. This is distinctly different from a father being uncomfortable with his daughter growing up.
If you wouldn't warn your daughter about the dangers of going back to a house full of strangers while drunk, good luck with it.

What danger are you talking about?!

Would I be uncomfortable with my daughter going back to house parties with strangers an having sex? Absolutely yes becasue it's something all fathers are uncomfortable with but at the end of the day, if she's a consenting adult, there is no "danger", it's her choice.

WHAT DANGER ARE YOU SO WORRIED ABOUT?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

According to Rape Crisis England and Wales approx 90% of rape victims know or are acquainted with the perpetrator beforehand.  So should we tell our daughters not to go out drinking with, and end up in a house with, people they know too?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:46:32 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 23, 2018, 11:23:18 AM
I do get the point that you need not put yourself in dodgy situations, *however* this was a house party in a nice area with a couple of well known sports stars. She wasn't exactly walking down the Falls singing the Sash and throwing petrol bombs at the houses.

My instinct on this is that the girl was attracted to Jackson, probably went with him, but at some point began to get uncomfortable and things, or the lads, were too far gone to row back. I don't believe this will translate into a guilty verdict.
This might well be what happened which I think supports my point about warning your daughter against going to a house full of strangers.

Victim blaming. Again. It happened because she put herself in a dangerous situation. Rather than, you know, the lads might be rapists. You're f**king pathetic.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 11:52:14 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

According to Rape Crisis England and Wales approx 90% of rape victims know or are acquainted with the perpetrator beforehand.  So should we tell our daughters not to go out drinking with, and end up in a house with, people they know too?

Yes I'd imagine it is, so its all about education, educate your daughters (and sons) as they grow up, if they make some mistakes as we all did, then hopefully they can deal with it and move on....

though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Look-Up! on March 23, 2018, 11:54:11 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 06:57:04 AM

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!

Hi Brokencrossbar. All the discussion seems to be mostly about the two lads (for fairly obvious reasons), but where do you think Harrison stands? Reading as much evidence as is available to a member of public and trying to see it through the eyes of a juror, my stance is this. As I said before I'd be leaning towards the girl's testimony being more credible but not with enough conviction to convict so I'd have to go with a not guilty verdict for the pair. Also I'd be shocked if this is not the verdict.
But I'd be very frustrated with Harrison. A lot of the texts from him were not on court record and it is my understanding that in some cases this was a court decision but for others it's because the messages simply no longer exist. He looked to be on damage limitation duty right from the off, was clearly getting legal advice from his father very early but his phone was wiped long after the seriousness of the case was apparent. I'd regards those texts as extra evidence that could be crucial in building a clearer picture in order to arrive at a just decision and to say the least I'd be very very frustrated with him.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:55:01 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 11:42:22 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:16:38 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 11:11:27 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 06:57:04 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 23, 2018, 12:09:36 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 22, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
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!!!
I would say that I have agreed with nearly everything you have posted on this topic, and bow to your obvious superior knowledge of the legal system.  However, though it may be most unlikely that they met there the next day to orchestrate a cover up, I find it absolutely unbelievable that they didn't discuss any furore surrounding the incident involving the young women.
Do you believe the accused that this was not discussed?  Do you believe that Harrison never mentioned to them about what she text them?  Whatever about guilt or innocence I would find that implausible, in my opinion of course.

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!
yes, I have no doubt that is the case.  But is the other side of that not true?  That if the prosecution raises the question in jurors heads, that if they are surely lying about not talking about it, then what else could they be lying about?

It is, but the burden of proof lies with the prosecution - they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to prove the innocence of their client, merely convince the jury that proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been achieved.
Yes I understand that, I am merely pointing out that it can also be used as a tactic for the prosecution.  For the record from everything that I have read, I would agree that it doesn't look that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt.   I would say that in cases similar to this it would always be difficult to meet that bar, without some key piece of evidence.  As someone mentioned earlier, putting an innocent person behind bars would be considered the greatest tragedy in the justice system, and it is only right that the accused gets the benefit of that doubt.

It can definitely be used as a tactic, but it's much more effective as a defence tactic. If the members of the jury are intelligent enough and the judge gives them proper instructions, they should hopefully be capable of understanding that "if they lied about that, what else might they lie about", despite the questions it may raise, doesn't specifically advance the case to the beyond reasonable doubt threshold.

That might be asking too much of judges and juries though...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:56:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 11:52:14 AM
though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

Over the last ten year, a huge proportion of members on this board have been students in the north, almost all of them male. I guarantee you at 19 years of age they'd absolutely have loved to be back in at a party with girls they didn't know after a night out. What danger were they in?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on March 23, 2018, 11:59:13 AM
I was wondering when this was going to come up. It's a question not answered by the prosecution. That girl left her friends and voluntarily went back to PJ's house. Why did she do that? Her friends tried to get her to come home but she refused and went back to the house. What was she doing back there?

I'm not blaming her and of course she has a right to go back and sleep with 1,2, or more of the men and women at the party. But when she went back she was looking for something to happen, perhaps just a kiss but that has been glossed over. She says she didn't know the Ulster Rugby guys, didn't follow it. So she wasn't 'star struck' to her they were 4 ordinary men and 3 ordinary girls. Why leave her friends and go back?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 12:02:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 11:52:14 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

According to Rape Crisis England and Wales approx 90% of rape victims know or are acquainted with the perpetrator beforehand.  So should we tell our daughters not to go out drinking with, and end up in a house with, people they know too?

Yes I'd imagine it is, so its all about education, educate your daughters (and sons) as they grow up, if they make some mistakes as we all did, then hopefully they can deal with it and move on....

though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

You give me far too much credit there MR2.  Some mistakes??...most weeks in my case!  Thank fcuk social media and CCTV wasn't around in my heyday!

I've a daughter in her mid-20s and of course I've given her advice and tips and told her to keep her wits about herself and to watch out etc.  Though a few years ago she did retort "Sure didn't you go out and go drinking when people were shooting each other and blowing each other up!".  My protestation that "That was different" fell on deaf ears!

My view is that if she ended up drunk at a party with people she didn't know very well or at all...and was attacked, I wouldn't consider her attendance at the party as the reason for her attack.  I'd be blaming whoever attacked her.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 23, 2018, 12:03:39 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:26:07 AM
If you had an 18/19 year old daughter, would you not warn her about the dangers of drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers?
If you had a pro rugby playing son would you not warn him about the dangers of drinking too much and what might happen with strangers ?

The last of the people who lived on the Blasket islands was given advice by his father when he left

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7gw78SWlNw
at 4.12

he didn't mention spit roasting
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 12:04:03 PM
She was there because she accepted an invitation to go back. Nothing more to it. There has been no insinuation or suggestion that she was brought back there under duress.

Whether she, at that point, intended to kiss or ride Jackson or anyone else is irrelevant if she subsequently didn't consent.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 23, 2018, 11:54:11 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 06:57:04 AM

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!

Hi Brokencrossbar. All the discussion seems to be mostly about the two lads (for fairly obvious reasons), but where do you think Harrison stands? Reading as much evidence as is available to a member of public and trying to see it through the eyes of a juror, my stance is this. As I said before I'd be leaning towards the girl's testimony being more credible but not with enough conviction to convict so I'd have to go with a not guilty verdict for the pair. Also I'd be shocked if this is not the verdict.
But I'd be very frustrated with Harrison. A lot of the texts from him were not on court record and it is my understanding that in some cases this was a court decision but for others it's because the messages simply no longer exist. He looked to be on damage limitation duty right from the off, was clearly getting legal advice from his father very early but his phone was wiped long after the seriousness of the case was apparent. I'd regards those texts as extra evidence that could be crucial in building a clearer picture in order to arrive at a just decision and to say the least I'd be very very frustrated with him.

Harrison may or may not have had messages that could have helped or hindered the investigation but the thing is they are not part of the evidence so it is really immaterial. It is a real stretch to prove perverting the course of justice I think. It is a crime of specific intent and not reckless intent like some other crimes. He had to specifically have intended to pervert the course of justice. For all anyone knows he wiped his phone of messages as there were pictures of him riding a donkey up the Jacksie. We just don't know. His da is a solicitor. The injured parties uncle is a judge and cousin a solicitor. Was she coached by her family members to do things a certain way?  Quite possibly she was.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 12:26:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:56:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 11:52:14 AM
though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

Over the last ten year, a huge proportion of members on this board have been students in the north, almost all of them male. I guarantee you at 19 years of age they'd absolutely have loved to be back in at a party with girls they didn't know after a night out. What danger were they in?

I didnt mention danger BTW

Girls or lads?

Girls, on a night out pissed and too drunk to really make the right choice and wake up regretting what happened

Lads, That someone they were having sex with decide that it wasnt sex the next day and said it was rape?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 12:29:05 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 12:26:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:56:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 11:52:14 AM
though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

Over the last ten year, a huge proportion of members on this board have been students in the north, almost all of them male. I guarantee you at 19 years of age they'd absolutely have loved to be back in at a party with girls they didn't know after a night out. What danger were they in?

I didnt mention danger BTW

Girls or lads?

Girls, on a night out pissed and too drunk to really make the right choice and wake up regretting what happened

Lads, That someone they were having sex with decide that it wasnt sex the next day and said it was rape?

That a frequent occurrence?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 12:29:58 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 23, 2018, 11:54:11 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 06:57:04 AM

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!

Hi Brokencrossbar. All the discussion seems to be mostly about the two lads (for fairly obvious reasons), but where do you think Harrison stands? Reading as much evidence as is available to a member of public and trying to see it through the eyes of a juror, my stance is this. As I said before I'd be leaning towards the girl's testimony being more credible but not with enough conviction to convict so I'd have to go with a not guilty verdict for the pair. Also I'd be shocked if this is not the verdict.
But I'd be very frustrated with Harrison. A lot of the texts from him were not on court record and it is my understanding that in some cases this was a court decision but for others it's because the messages simply no longer exist. He looked to be on damage limitation duty right from the off, was clearly getting legal advice from his father very early but his phone was wiped long after the seriousness of the case was apparent. I'd regards those texts as extra evidence that could be crucial in building a clearer picture in order to arrive at a just decision and to say the least I'd be very very frustrated with him.

Harrison may or may not have had messages that could have helped or hindered the investigation but the thing is they are not part of the evidence so it is really immaterial. It is a real stretch to prove perverting the course of justice I think. It is a crime of specific intent and not reckless intent like some other crimes. He had to specifically have intended to pervert the course of justice. For all anyone knows he wiped his phone of messages as there were pictures of him riding a donkey up the Jacksie. We just don't know. His da is a solicitor. The injured parties uncle is a judge and cousin a solicitor. Was she coached by her family members to do things a certain way?  Quite possibly she was.

I heard this too ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 12:34:12 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 12:02:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 11:52:14 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

According to Rape Crisis England and Wales approx 90% of rape victims know or are acquainted with the perpetrator beforehand.  So should we tell our daughters not to go out drinking with, and end up in a house with, people they know too?

Yes I'd imagine it is, so its all about education, educate your daughters (and sons) as they grow up, if they make some mistakes as we all did, then hopefully they can deal with it and move on....

though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

You give me far too much credit there MR2.  Some mistakes??...most weeks in my case!  Thank fcuk social media and CCTV wasn't around in my heyday!

I've a daughter in her mid-20s and of course I've given her advice and tips and told her to keep her wits about herself and to watch out etc.  Though a few years ago she did retort "Sure didn't you go out and go drinking when people were shooting each other and blowing each other up!".  My protestation that "That was different" fell on deaf ears!

My view is that if she ended up drunk at a party with people she didn't know very well or at all...and was attacked, I wouldn't consider her attendance at the party as the reason for her attack.  I'd be blaming whoever attacked her.
[/b]

Yes, totally blame anyone who has carried out a sexual attack, but only if they actually did, sexually attack them.. 

I've a 25 year son, and if he ever found himself going to a party with unknowns I'd be saying that your daft for doing that.. I'd been to plenty parties over the years that I'm glad my mum and dad didnt know, or my wife (then girlfriend) for that matter!! as they were in places during troubled times that a young catholic shouldnt have been in!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 12:38:48 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 12:29:05 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 12:26:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:56:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 11:52:14 AM
though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

Over the last ten year, a huge proportion of members on this board have been students in the north, almost all of them male. I guarantee you at 19 years of age they'd absolutely have loved to be back in at a party with girls they didn't know after a night out. What danger were they in?

I didnt mention danger BTW

Girls or lads?

Girls, on a night out pissed and too drunk to really make the right choice and wake up regretting what happened

Lads, That someone they were having sex with decide that it wasnt sex the next day and said it was rape?

That a frequent occurrence?

I'm not sure, but its happened, what has the frequency of it mean? it only has to happen to you once for it to be a problem.. I'm not at the courts and wouldnt have the figures of rape cases that involve a, he said she said, no physical or witness evidenced based case..           
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 12:43:48 PM
What has frequency to do with it? Everything.

Say, for example, 0.1% of casual sexual encounters result in a false accusation of rape. That may be high, it may be low. I've no idea, but i suspect I'm being exceptionally generous. 1 in a thousand instances. You'd be warning your sons about the danger of it and sitting up at night worrying for them, waiting desperately for them to get home, just in case someone has accused them of rape?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tiempo on March 23, 2018, 12:46:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 12:34:12 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 12:02:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 11:52:14 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

According to Rape Crisis England and Wales approx 90% of rape victims know or are acquainted with the perpetrator beforehand.  So should we tell our daughters not to go out drinking with, and end up in a house with, people they know too?

Yes I'd imagine it is, so its all about education, educate your daughters (and sons) as they grow up, if they make some mistakes as we all did, then hopefully they can deal with it and move on....

though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

You give me far too much credit there MR2.  Some mistakes??...most weeks in my case!  Thank fcuk social media and CCTV wasn't around in my heyday!

I've a daughter in her mid-20s and of course I've given her advice and tips and told her to keep her wits about herself and to watch out etc.  Though a few years ago she did retort "Sure didn't you go out and go drinking when people were shooting each other and blowing each other up!".  My protestation that "That was different" fell on deaf ears!

My view is that if she ended up drunk at a party with people she didn't know very well or at all...and was attacked, I wouldn't consider her attendance at the party as the reason for her attack.  I'd be blaming whoever attacked her.
[/b]

Yes, totally blame anyone who has carried out a sexual attack, but only if they actually did, sexually attack them.. 

I've a 25 year son, and if he ever found himself going to a party with unknowns I'd be saying that your daft for doing that.. I'd been to plenty parties over the years that I'm glad my mum and dad didnt know, or my wife (then girlfriend) for that matter!! as they were in places during troubled times that a young catholic shouldnt have been in!

If you had your time again would you go there or be square?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: passedit on March 23, 2018, 12:48:22 PM
Maybe all the 'she was asking for it' merchants with the advice for their daughters would be better advising their sons not to be complete scumbags around women maybe?

On the trial, my opinion is this would never have come to court if Jackson had claimed consensual sex. The fact that he claimed not to have had sex at all and was proved to be lying sinks him for me, but I'm only going on what's been reported from the trial. Of the rest of them, Olding would be the hardest for me to convict, not because he's anything other than a sc**bag but there isn't enough evidence (I wonder what happened to his clothes/ the girl on the settee) Harrison guilty for me, telling someone not to bring his phone to the interview then wiping his own? Not buying his story at all.


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 12:56:16 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 12:43:48 PM
What has frequency to do with it? Everything.

Say, for example, 0.1% of casual sexual encounters result in a false accusation of rape. That may be high, it may be low. I've no idea, but i suspect I'm being exceptionally generous. 1 in a thousand instances. You'd be warning your sons about the danger of it and sitting up at night worrying for them, waiting desperately for them to get home, just in case someone has accused them of rape?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFTRwD85AQ4
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: tiempo on March 23, 2018, 12:46:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 12:34:12 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 12:02:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 11:52:14 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

According to Rape Crisis England and Wales approx 90% of rape victims know or are acquainted with the perpetrator beforehand.  So should we tell our daughters not to go out drinking with, and end up in a house with, people they know too?

Yes I'd imagine it is, so its all about education, educate your daughters (and sons) as they grow up, if they make some mistakes as we all did, then hopefully they can deal with it and move on....

though to listen to the halfwits on here you'd think they grew up with a halo and never uttered a word that would annoy a fly

You give me far too much credit there MR2.  Some mistakes??...most weeks in my case!  Thank fcuk social media and CCTV wasn't around in my heyday!

I've a daughter in her mid-20s and of course I've given her advice and tips and told her to keep her wits about herself and to watch out etc.  Though a few years ago she did retort "Sure didn't you go out and go drinking when people were shooting each other and blowing each other up!".  My protestation that "That was different" fell on deaf ears!

My view is that if she ended up drunk at a party with people she didn't know very well or at all...and was attacked, I wouldn't consider her attendance at the party as the reason for her attack.  I'd be blaming whoever attacked her.
[/b]

Yes, totally blame anyone who has carried out a sexual attack, but only if they actually did, sexually attack them.. 

I've a 25 year son, and if he ever found himself going to a party with unknowns I'd be saying that your daft for doing that.. I'd been to plenty parties over the years that I'm glad my mum and dad didnt know, or my wife (then girlfriend) for that matter!! as they were in places during troubled times that a young catholic shouldnt have been in!

If you had your time again would you go there or be square?

Yes, i'd proabaly make the same mistakes, drink in, wit out!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 23, 2018, 01:06:53 PM
Quote from: passedit on March 23, 2018, 12:48:22 PM
Maybe all the 'she was asking for it' merchants with the advice for their daughters would be better advising their sons not to be complete scumbags around women maybe?

On the trial, my opinion is this would never have come to court if Jackson had claimed consensual sex. The fact that he claimed not to have had sex at all and was proved to be lying sinks him for me, but I'm only going on what's been reported from the trial. Of the rest of them, Olding would be the hardest for me to convict, not because he's anything other than a sc**bag but there isn't enough evidence (I wonder what happened to his clothes/ the girl on the settee) Harrison guilty for me, telling someone not to bring his phone to the interview then wiping his own? Not buying his story at all.

Both said in court that nothing happened. She said she vomited and fell asleep. He said he lay down beside her and fell asleep. He said that she was under a blanket and he stayed over the blanket.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Over the Bar on March 23, 2018, 01:34:02 PM
Are the jury deliberating at present or what's happening today?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 01:36:25 PM
Quote from: Over the Bar on March 23, 2018, 01:34:02 PM
Are the jury deliberating at present or what's happening today?

The judge is giving the first part of her charge and directions.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 23, 2018, 01:36:51 PM
Quote from: Over the Bar on March 23, 2018, 01:34:02 PM
Are the jury deliberating at present or what's happening today?

Judge is giving them direction today . . . going over how they should make their decision important points of evidence etc.

Looks like they deliberating will start on Monday/Tuesday.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 01:38:07 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 23, 2018, 01:36:51 PM
Quote from: Over the Bar on March 23, 2018, 01:34:02 PM
Are the jury deliberating at present or what's happening today?

Judge is giving them direction today . . . going over how they should make their decision important points of evidence etc.

Looks like they deliberating will start on Monday/Tuesday.

Tuesday before deliberations. Second part of directions on Monday
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Look-Up! on March 23, 2018, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 12:19:39 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 23, 2018, 11:54:11 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 23, 2018, 06:57:04 AM

I would say it was discussed but it's not the kinda place that you're going to get much privacy to have an in-depth conversation. I've never been in it but looked at some sphoyos there and it's a pretty open plan area where they wouldn't have had much privacy. The key to it is that Gavan Duffy raises the question in the jurors heads, creates doubts, builds up a picture. Did they discuss the previous night?  Yes I've no doubt they did but they could have been discussing it in a happy manner just as easily as a conspiratorial one. Harrison says what she said and they reply that's a load of bollix as she was fully into it. If they were conspiring you would have thought that they'd have got all their stories the same at least!

Hi Brokencrossbar. All the discussion seems to be mostly about the two lads (for fairly obvious reasons), but where do you think Harrison stands? Reading as much evidence as is available to a member of public and trying to see it through the eyes of a juror, my stance is this. As I said before I'd be leaning towards the girl's testimony being more credible but not with enough conviction to convict so I'd have to go with a not guilty verdict for the pair. Also I'd be shocked if this is not the verdict.
But I'd be very frustrated with Harrison. A lot of the texts from him were not on court record and it is my understanding that in some cases this was a court decision but for others it's because the messages simply no longer exist. He looked to be on damage limitation duty right from the off, was clearly getting legal advice from his father very early but his phone was wiped long after the seriousness of the case was apparent. I'd regards those texts as extra evidence that could be crucial in building a clearer picture in order to arrive at a just decision and to say the least I'd be very very frustrated with him.

Harrison may or may not have had messages that could have helped or hindered the investigation but the thing is they are not part of the evidence so it is really immaterial. It is a real stretch to prove perverting the course of justice I think. It is a crime of specific intent and not reckless intent like some other crimes. He had to specifically have intended to pervert the course of justice. For all anyone knows he wiped his phone of messages as there were pictures of him riding a donkey up the Jacksie. We just don't know. His da is a solicitor. The injured parties uncle is a judge and cousin a solicitor. Was she coached by her family members to do things a certain way?  Quite possibly she was.

Of course she was coached and of course they were coached to some degree. It's preparation and I wouldn't expect anything else from their legal teams and I don't buy into the "unscrupulous" defense barrister with conflict of interest with regards to monetary reward either. The prosecution operates under the same terms and they have as much conflict of interest. It would not be good for their careers if they could not win cases.
But I was talking about Harrison's case more so. I know you were joking with the bit about riding the donkey, but it's kind of what I was getting at. In a case as serious as this and with regards to evidence that might be able to shed some light on it, when asked to produce such evidence is saying "the dog ate it" really a legitimate excuse? I would have thought the law would deal with this sort of attitude very heavy handedly. How worried should he be and what are the possible punishments?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 01:49:16 PM
Judge Patricia Smyth has started her direction, delayed earlier due to a technical glitch.  She tells the jury:

For the jurors to convict Paddy Jackson of vaginally raping the woman, they must be sure:

1. He intentionally used his penis to penetrate her vagina.
2. She did not consent.
3. Mr. Jackson did not reasonably believe she was consenting when he penetrated her.

For the jurors to convict Paddy Jackson of sexual assault, they must be sure that he:

1. Intentionally used his finger(s) to penetrate her vagina.
2. The penetration was sexual.
3. The complainant did not consent.
4. Paddy Jackson did not reasonably believe she was consenting.

For the jurors to convict Stuart Olding of oral rape, they must be sure that:

1. He intentionally used his penis to penetrate her mouth.
2. She did not consent.
3. He did not reasonably believe she was consenting.

For the jurors to convict Blane McIlroy of exposure (consent not an issue here), they must be sure:

1. He intentionally exposed his genitals.
2. He intended her to see them and be caused alarm or distress.

For the jurors to convict Mr. Harrison of perverting the course of justice, they must be sure:

1. On a date between June 27 2016 and July 1st 2016, Rory Harrison made a witness statement in which he lied about his dealings with the complainant or deliberately omitted information in the statement relevant to the police investigation.
2. That the lie or omission had a tendency to pervert the course of justice.
3. That Rory Harrison intended to pervert the course of justice.

Edit I forgot about the withholding information charge for RH

For the jurors to convict Rory Harrison of withholding information, they must be sure that between June 27 2016 and Oct 5th 2016

1. The offence of rape had been committed.
2. Rory Harrison knew or believed that the offence of rape had been committed.
3. He knew or believed he had info. which was likely to secure, or be of material assistance in securing, the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person of that offence AND without reasonable excuse, failed to give that info within a reasonable time to a constable.



So quite straightforward for the jury then ???
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trailer on March 23, 2018, 01:51:45 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 01:49:16 PM
Judge Patricia Smyth has started her direction, delayed earlier due to a technical glitch.  She tells the jury:

For the jurors to convict Paddy Jackson of vaginally raping the woman, they must be sure:

1. He intentionally used his penis to penetrate her vagina
2. She did not consent
3. Mr. Jackson did not reasonably believe she was consenting when he penetrated her.

For the jurors to convict Paddy Jackson of sexual assault, they must be sure that he:

1. Intentionally used his finger(s) to penetrate her vagina
2. The penetration was sexual
3. The complainant did not consent
4. Paddy Jackson did not reasonably believe she was consenting

For the jurors to convict Stuart Olding of oral rape, they must be sure that:

1. He intentionally used his penis to penetrate her mouth
2. She did not consent
3. He did not reasonably believe she was consenting

For the jurors to convict Blane McIlroy of exposure (consent not an issue here), they must be sure:

1. He intentionally exposed his genitals
2. He intended her to see them and be caused alarm or distress

For the jurors to convict Mr. Harrison of perverting the course of justice, they must be sure:

1. On a date between June 27 2016 and July 1st 2016, Rory Harrison made a witness statement in which he lied about his dealings with the complainant or deliberately omitted information in the statement relevant to the police investigation.
2. That the lie or omission had a tendency to pervert the course of justice.
3. That Rory Harrison intended to pervert the course of justice.

So quite straightforward for the jury then???

He could be in bother here. He admits exposing them (got a BJ). Jackson said he didn't. Of all of the accused he in my mind is most likely to be convicted.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:01:59 PM
Harry & Meaghan in Belfast today.  Possible late character witness??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:10:56 PM
On the withholding information charge, my reading is that if Jackson and Olding are both acquitted of rape then Harrison cannot be convicted of withholding information?? 

BTW the judge is finished for today...back on Monday to discuss evidence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on March 23, 2018, 02:26:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:01:59 PM
Harry & Meaghan in Belfast today.  Possible late character witness??

Meaghan is going to give all the Barristers a run down on how to do their jobs. She works for a law firm, Pearson Specter Litt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Look-Up! on March 23, 2018, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:10:56 PM
On the withholding information charge, my reading is that if Jackson and Olding are both acquitted of rape then Harrison cannot be convicted of withholding information?? 

BTW the judge is finished for today...back on Monday to discuss evidence.

That seems incredible to me. So basically if an accused gets off because of insufficient evidence, the person who destroys possible evidence is not guilty of a crime, because the accused was not convicted (because of insufficient evidence).

Note: I was talking in general and not necessarily specifically about this case
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 02:33:29 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 23, 2018, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:10:56 PM
On the withholding information charge, my reading is that if Jackson and Olding are both acquitted of rape then Harrison cannot be convicted of withholding information?? 

BTW the judge is finished for today...back on Monday to discuss evidence.

That seems incredible to me. So basically if an accused gets off because of insufficient evidence, the person who destroys possible evidence is not guilty of a crime, because the accused was not convicted (because of insufficient evidence).

Note: I was talking in general and not necessarily specifically about this case

Allegedly destroryed evidence in a supposed crime
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 23, 2018, 02:40:24 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 23, 2018, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:10:56 PM
On the withholding information charge, my reading is that if Jackson and Olding are both acquitted of rape then Harrison cannot be convicted of withholding information?? 

BTW the judge is finished for today...back on Monday to discuss evidence.

That seems incredible to me. So basically if an accused gets off because of insufficient evidence, the person who destroys possible evidence is not guilty of a crime, because the accused was not convicted (because of insufficient evidence).

Note: I was talking in general and not necessarily specifically about this case

Does seem a bit bizarre alright. I actually thought Harrison was in trouble but if Olding and Jackson are acquitted then so must he.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mayo4Sam on March 23, 2018, 02:49:37 PM
Mr. Jackson did not reasonably believe she was consenting when he penetrated her.

I think this is the key part, it seems to me that both sides could believe their story, that she believes she was raped while the lads believe she consented.
Its interesting to see that if that is the case they are innocent
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 23, 2018, 03:26:33 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 23, 2018, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:10:56 PM
On the withholding information charge, my reading is that if Jackson and Olding are both acquitted of rape then Harrison cannot be convicted of withholding information?? 

BTW the judge is finished for today...back on Monday to discuss evidence.

That seems incredible to me. So basically if an accused gets off because of insufficient evidence, the person who destroys possible evidence is not guilty of a crime, because the accused was not convicted (because of insufficient evidence).

Note: I was talking in general and not necessarily specifically about this case

I see what you mean, but maybe that's why he has two charges against him (number 5 and 6). If the lads are not guilty, then Harrison must be not guilty of Charge 6, but he can still be guilty of Charge 5

Charge 5: Perverting the course of justice:

The prosecution must prove 3 things beyond reasonable doubt:
1) on a date between 27/06/16 and 1/07/16 Rory Harrison made a witness statement in which he lied about his dealings with the woman or deliberately omitted information in the statement relevant to the police
2) the lie or omission had a tendency to pervert the course of justice
3) that Rory Harrison intended to pervert the court of justice

Charge 6: Withholding information about a crime he knew or believe had been committed (so for this one, it seems that no crime means no charge to answer)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 23, 2018, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 23, 2018, 02:26:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:01:59 PM
Harry & Meaghan in Belfast today.  Possible late character witness??

Meaghan is going to give all the Barristers a run down on how to do their jobs. She works for a law firm, Pearson Specter Litt.

I think that is outrageous, sure she hasn't been in court for the whole proceedings and is probably only following the same bits n bobs as the rest of us. Also she us surely only qualified as a lawyer in the US whuch has completely different laws and procedures than in this wee country.

🎣
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: OgraAnDun on March 23, 2018, 04:01:32 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on March 23, 2018, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 23, 2018, 02:26:15 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:01:59 PM
Harry & Meaghan in Belfast today.  Possible late character witness??

Meaghan is going to give all the Barristers a run down on how to do their jobs. She works for a law firm, Pearson Specter Litt.

I think that is outrageous, sure she hasn't been in court for the whole proceedings and is probably only following the same bits n bobs as the rest of us. Also she us surely only qualified as a lawyer in the US whuch has completely different laws and procedures than in this wee country.

🎣

Sure she's only a paralegal. Hasn't even finished her degree. Outrageous.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 04:06:48 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 23, 2018, 03:26:33 PM
Quote from: Look-Up! on March 23, 2018, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 02:10:56 PM
On the withholding information charge, my reading is that if Jackson and Olding are both acquitted of rape then Harrison cannot be convicted of withholding information?? 

BTW the judge is finished for today...back on Monday to discuss evidence.

That seems incredible to me. So basically if an accused gets off because of insufficient evidence, the person who destroys possible evidence is not guilty of a crime, because the accused was not convicted (because of insufficient evidence).

Note: I was talking in general and not necessarily specifically about this case

I see what you mean, but maybe that's why he has two charges against him (number 5 and 6). If the lads are not guilty, then Harrison must be not guilty of Charge 6, but he can still be guilty of Charge 5

Charge 5: Perverting the course of justice:

The prosecution must prove 3 things beyond reasonable doubt:
1) on a date between 27/06/16 and 1/07/16 Rory Harrison made a witness statement in which he lied about his dealings with the woman or deliberately omitted information in the statement relevant to the police
2) the lie or omission had a tendency to pervert the course of justice
3) that Rory Harrison intended to pervert the court of justice

Charge 6: Withholding information about a crime he knew or believe had been committed (so for this one, it seems that no crime means no charge to answer)

Yeah, that looks like it makes sense Hound, thanks.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 23, 2018, 06:10:10 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 23, 2018, 01:36:51 PM
Quote from: Over the Bar on March 23, 2018, 01:34:02 PM
Are the jury deliberating at present or what's happening today?

Judge is giving them direction today . . . going over how they should make their decision important points of evidence etc.

Looks like they deliberating will start on Monday/Tuesday.
Could be a good night in Ollies on Wednesday so.
Extra cocktail sausages being ordered
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on March 23, 2018, 06:22:38 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 23, 2018, 06:10:10 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 23, 2018, 01:36:51 PM
Quote from: Over the Bar on March 23, 2018, 01:34:02 PM
Are the jury deliberating at present or what's happening today?

Judge is giving them direction today . . . going over how they should make their decision important points of evidence etc.

Looks like they deliberating will start on Monday/Tuesday.
Could be a good night in Ollies on Wednesday so.
Extra cocktail sausages being ordered
You'll be in your element
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 23, 2018, 06:23:50 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 23, 2018, 06:10:10 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 23, 2018, 01:36:51 PM
Quote from: Over the Bar on March 23, 2018, 01:34:02 PM
Are the jury deliberating at present or what's happening today?

Judge is giving them direction today . . . going over how they should make their decision important points of evidence etc.

Looks like they deliberating will start on Monday/Tuesday.
Could be a good night in Ollies on Wednesday so.
Extra cocktail sausages being ordered
McIlroy will be on sausage rolls
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 23, 2018, 06:45:57 PM
My understanding is that only the Acteus Reus of the offence need be committed but I'd need to look that up. Be interesting to see if there's any requisitions come Monday
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 07:27:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 23, 2018, 06:45:57 PM
My understanding is that only the Acteus Reus of the offence need be committed but I'd need to look that up. Be interesting to see if there's any requisitions come Monday
Are you referring to Harrison's charges David. Also what do you mean by requisitions??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 23, 2018, 07:32:38 PM
Sorry yes I meant Harrison's charges. Requisitions are when the prosecution or the defence at the end of the Judge's charge raise issues that may have arisen during the charge. Such as an error in summing up or on the legal direction given. If necessary the jury will then be recalled and the error corrected or clarified.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 07:35:45 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 23, 2018, 07:32:38 PM
Sorry yes I meant Harrison's charges. Requisitions are when the prosecution or the defence at the end of the Judge's charge raise issues that may have arisen during the charge. Such as an error in summing up or on the legal direction given. If necessary the jury will then be recalled and the error corrected or clarified.
Thanks for that David.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Over the Bar on March 23, 2018, 08:29:03 PM
Is Syferus on holidays???
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 09:59:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 23, 2018, 12:03:39 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:26:07 AM
If you had an 18/19 year old daughter, would you not warn her about the dangers of drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers?
If you had a pro rugby playing son would you not warn him about the dangers of drinking too much and what might happen with strangers ?

The last of the people who lived on the Blasket islands was given advice by his father when he left

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7gw78SWlNw
at 4.12

he didn't mention spit roasting
Of course I would seafoid. I don't have a son though so am looking at it from the other pov. If they raped her they're 100% responsible for that. That's so obvious it shouldn't need to be stated. It doesn't mean there aren't lessons to be learned or that every decision the girl made that evening was spot on.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:30:46 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 11:46:32 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 23, 2018, 11:23:18 AM
I do get the point that you need not put yourself in dodgy situations, *however* this was a house party in a nice area with a couple of well known sports stars. She wasn't exactly walking down the Falls singing the Sash and throwing petrol bombs at the houses.

My instinct on this is that the girl was attracted to Jackson, probably went with him, but at some point began to get uncomfortable and things, or the lads, were too far gone to row back. I don't believe this will translate into a guilty verdict.
This might well be what happened which I think supports my point about warning your daughter against going to a house full of strangers.

Victim blaming. Again. It happened because she put herself in a dangerous situation. Rather than, you know, the lads might be rapists. You're f**king pathetic.
Resort to stock phrases like "victim blaming" and personal abuse because your argument doesn't stand up. We're debating whether we should warn our teenage daughters about getting into situations like this. AZ says he thinks that the girl got herself into a situation she couldn't get herself out of. I say that supports my point that maybe it's the kind of situation we should advise our daughters against getting into. It doesn't in any way take away from their crimes if they did rape her. It doesn't make the girl in any way responsible, it just means that others can learn from what happened.

An as for being pathetic, I would say that firing out personal insults in an aggressive tone on an anonymous Internet forum is the definition of that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 10:44:23 PM
There you go again. She got herself into "this situation". There was no "situation" until she was allegedly raped.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:45:34 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

According to Rape Crisis England and Wales approx 90% of rape victims know or are acquainted with the perpetrator beforehand.  So should we tell our daughters not to go out drinking with, and end up in a house with, people they know too?
How do they define "know or are acquainted with"? The girl had been drinking with Jackson and his friends so I think might have fitted into the 90% rather than the 10% (if she was raped that is, from what I've heard I believe she consented).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:52:39 PM
"Got herself into a situation" were my words not AZs obviously. I don't want to misrepresent anyone.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:06:09 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 23, 2018, 10:59:54 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:52:39 PM
"Got herself into a situation" were my words not AZs obviously. I don't want to misrepresent anyone.
Do people ever have to warn their sons about their actions on a night out? Or is it just the daughters we should be concentrating on?
I answered this question from seafoid 4 posts ago.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:07:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 10:44:23 PM
There you go again. She got herself into "this situation". There was no "situation" until she was allegedly raped.
I would consider a 19 year old girl being drunk in a house with 4 very drunk men she doesn't know "a situation".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 11:08:30 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 23, 2018, 10:59:54 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:52:39 PM
"Got herself into a situation" were my words not AZs obviously. I don't want to misrepresent anyone.
Do people ever have to warn their sons about their actions on a night out? Or is it just the daughters we should be concentrating on?

Wouldn't know what other parents do but I know I gave life advice to my kids, boys and girls, that includes their actions have reactions and be wary. There is no rule book or manual on being a parent you hope things work out!

When you have teenagers you can give them that pep talk
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:29:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 11:08:30 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 23, 2018, 10:59:54 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:52:39 PM
"Got herself into a situation" were my words not AZs obviously. I don't want to misrepresent anyone.
Do people ever have to warn their sons about their actions on a night out? Or is it just the daughters we should be concentrating on?

Wouldn't know what other parents do but I know I gave life advice to my kids, boys and girls, that includes their actions have reactions and be wary. There is no rule book or manual on being a parent you hope things work out!

When you have teenagers you can give them that pep talk
Absolutely. Anyone who isn't giving that life advice isn't really being a parent. Not to say I'm dad of the year. I spend too much time engaged in pointless arguments on Internet forums for a start.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 23, 2018, 11:42:54 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:07:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 10:44:23 PM
There you go again. She got herself into "this situation". There was no "situation" until she was allegedly raped.
I would consider a 19 year old girl being drunk in a house with 4 very drunk men she doesn't know "a situation".

Agreed.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 24, 2018, 12:04:34 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:29:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 11:08:30 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 23, 2018, 10:59:54 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:52:39 PM
"Got herself into a situation" were my words not AZs obviously. I don't want to misrepresent anyone.
Do people ever have to warn their sons about their actions on a night out? Or is it just the daughters we should be concentrating on?

Wouldn't know what other parents do but I know I gave life advice to my kids, boys and girls, that includes their actions have reactions and be wary. There is no rule book or manual on being a parent you hope things work out!

When you have teenagers you can give them that pep talk
Absolutely. Anyone who isn't giving that life advice isn't really being a parent. Not to say I'm dad of the year. I spend too much time engaged in pointless arguments on Internet forums for a start.

You certainly wouldn't be father of the year with the sort of regressive stuff you've came out with in this thread alright. What was that about the MeToo movement again?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 24, 2018, 12:30:53 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 24, 2018, 12:04:34 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:29:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 11:08:30 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 23, 2018, 10:59:54 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:52:39 PM
"Got herself into a situation" were my words not AZs obviously. I don't want to misrepresent anyone.
Do people ever have to warn their sons about their actions on a night out? Or is it just the daughters we should be concentrating on?

Wouldn't know what other parents do but I know I gave life advice to my kids, boys and girls, that includes their actions have reactions and be wary. There is no rule book or manual on being a parent you hope things work out!

When you have teenagers you can give them that pep talk
Absolutely. Anyone who isn't giving that life advice isn't really being a parent. Not to say I'm dad of the year. I spend too much time engaged in pointless arguments on Internet forums for a start.

You certainly wouldn't be father of the year with the sort of regressive stuff you've came out with in this thread alright. What was that about the MeToo movement again?

Syferus when you ever get the chance to meet a girl, develop a real relationship get married have kids I'll certainly listen to you when talking about father of the year. Though I doubt very much that will ever happen.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 24, 2018, 01:00:21 AM
Syferus, I compared some actresses in Hollywood who consentually sleep with men for money to women in red light districts who consentually sleep with men for money. Your shock at this is very middle class and rather than showing you to be as progressive as you think it does, it just reveals that you see prostitutes as some kind of sub-human scum. Like I said before, they would get the comparison. I would say on average their life choices are a lot tougher and generally they don't want to be doing it any more than the actresses do(some sex workers love their jobs though and good luck to them) .

I also said the MeToo movement was mostly positive but of course questioning any aspect of it is "victim blaming" and that's the part that the likes of yourself will zone in on as it represents a chance to jump up on the high horse, which is all you really give a shit about anyway.

Some women who attached themselves to the MeToo movement, did very well out of sleeping with powerful men in Hollywood and would do the exact same if they could travel back in time. They are not victims. They are attention seekers.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 24, 2018, 08:52:53 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:07:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 10:44:23 PM
There you go again. She got herself into "this situation". There was no "situation" until she was allegedly raped.
I would consider a 19 year old girl being drunk in a house with 4 very drunk men she doesn't know "a situation".
Earlier you said this situation fell into the 90% of cases where the perp is known to or acquainted with the victim. Now you're saying she didn't know them. Which is it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 24, 2018, 08:58:34 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:45:34 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

According to Rape Crisis England and Wales approx 90% of rape victims know or are acquainted with the perpetrator beforehand.  So should we tell our daughters not to go out drinking with, and end up in a house with, people they know too?
How do they define "know or are acquainted with"? The girl had been drinking with Jackson and his friends so I think might have fitted into the 90% rather than the 10% (if she was raped that is, from what I've heard I believe she consented).
But she didn't know them, as you've confirmed, so it actually falls into the 10% (if it's shown to have been a rape)??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 24, 2018, 10:08:54 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 24, 2018, 08:58:34 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:45:34 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

According to Rape Crisis England and Wales approx 90% of rape victims know or are acquainted with the perpetrator beforehand.  So should we tell our daughters not to go out drinking with, and end up in a house with, people they know too?
How do they define "know or are acquainted with"? The girl had been drinking with Jackson and his friends so I think might have fitted into the 90% rather than the 10% (if she was raped that is, from what I've heard I believe she consented).
But she didn't know them, as you've confirmed, so it actually falls into the 10% (if it's shown to have been a rape)??

She claimed she didn't but I doubt that
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 24, 2018, 10:13:46 AM
I would tend to agree with MR2. Given her background and who she was there is a high likelihood that she knew Jackson at least. She may never have met him nor knew what he was like but it's not a huge jump to suggest that she knew who he was. It is supposition I know but a pretty educated guess.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 24, 2018, 10:17:49 AM
There is a distinct difference between knowing someone and knowing who someone is.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Over the Bar on March 24, 2018, 10:28:30 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 24, 2018, 10:17:49 AM
There is a distinct difference between knowing someone and knowing who someone is.

There is, as well as several in between.  e.g. met before, been in company of etc.  Don't think there's any suggestion they were buddies but highly likely she met him before since a)  the lads considered themselves 'top shaggers' and b)  the girl in question is a real stunner and finally c)  they all frequented the rather small  VIP area of Ollie's so their paths will have crossed I'd expect.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 24, 2018, 11:04:24 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 24, 2018, 10:08:54 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 24, 2018, 08:58:34 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:45:34 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 23, 2018, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Of course they might not listen anyway. My only point was that drinking too much and ending up in a house full of strangers isn't a good idea and the dangers are greater for a girl. I know it's so obvious that I shouldn't bother making it but I was honestly unsure whether some people accepted that simple truth from their reactions to it being brought up on this thread.

According to Rape Crisis England and Wales approx 90% of rape victims know or are acquainted with the perpetrator beforehand.  So should we tell our daughters not to go out drinking with, and end up in a house with, people they know too?
How do they define "know or are acquainted with"? The girl had been drinking with Jackson and his friends so I think might have fitted into the 90% rather than the 10% (if she was raped that is, from what I've heard I believe she consented).
But she didn't know them, as you've confirmed, so it actually falls into the 10% (if it's shown to have been a rape)??
She claimed she didn't but I doubt that
Just pointing out the inconsistency in AM's posts. I'd agree she probably knew who Jackson was anyway. Maybe not Olding and probably not the other two. Though I think McIlroy was with Ulster for a year at one stage.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 24, 2018, 11:24:48 AM
If they get off, Jackson will have no problem in getting a contract with any English or French club.  Olding would struggle to get a professional contract with a Championship side in England.  Will be interesting to see how Ulster Rugby extricates itself from Jackson's and Olding's contracts if found not guilty. 

Ulster Rugby is putting considerable PR efforts to promote their new squeaky clean, boy wonder, Stockdale as the next couple of weeks will not be good it.  Already had former players Paddy Wallace and Simon Danielli in court during the last year and the current court case continues to be associated with Ulster Rugby. Never mind the downward spiral in performance on the field.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 24, 2018, 01:10:28 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:29:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 23, 2018, 11:08:30 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 23, 2018, 10:59:54 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:52:39 PM
"Got herself into a situation" were my words not AZs obviously. I don't want to misrepresent anyone.
Do people ever have to warn their sons about their actions on a night out? Or is it just the daughters we should be concentrating on?

Wouldn't know what other parents do but I know I gave life advice to my kids, boys and girls, that includes their actions have reactions and be wary. There is no rule book or manual on being a parent you hope things work out!

When you have teenagers you can give them that pep talk
Absolutely. Anyone who isn't giving that life advice isn't really being a parent. Not to say I'm dad of the year. I spend too much time engaged in pointless arguments on Internet forums for a start.
But then you win an All Ireland ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 24, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 24, 2018, 11:24:48 AM
If they get off, Jackson will have no problem in getting a contract with any English or French club.  Olding would struggle to get a professional contract with a Championship side in England.  Will be interesting to see how Ulster Rugby extricates itself from Jackson's and Olding's contracts if found not guilty. 

Ulster Rugby is putting considerable PR efforts to promote their new squeaky clean, boy wonder, Stockdale as the next couple of weeks will not be good it.  Already had former players Paddy Wallace and Simon Danielli in court during the last year and the current court case continues to be associated with Ulster Rugby. Never mind the downward spiral in performance on the field.

I'd say he would have absolutely no problem getting a contract in England tbh in so far as his talent goes, maybe France will be the place he ends up however with the baggage.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 24, 2018, 04:49:23 PM
Would Australia not be good for PJ should he get off?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Over the Bar on March 24, 2018, 04:56:59 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 24, 2018, 04:49:23 PM
Would Australia not be good for PJ should he get off?

Contract for a French  club already agreed apparently!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 24, 2018, 05:26:40 PM
Quote from: Over the Bar on March 24, 2018, 04:56:59 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 24, 2018, 04:49:23 PM
Would Australia not be good for PJ should he get off?

Contract for a French  club already agreed apparently!

Be hard to play if convicted! Unless the French know something and forgot to tell Syferus
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 24, 2018, 06:36:33 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 23, 2018, 10:59:54 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 10:52:39 PM
"Got herself into a situation" were my words not AZs obviously. I don't want to misrepresent anyone.
Do people ever have to warn their sons about their actions on a night out? Or is it just the daughters we should be concentrating on?
Yes people have to do this. A local Garda came into our lads secondary school and spoke to the fifth and sixth years. He spellt out fairly clearly the legal position re assaults on the street, possession of drugs, sex offences and road traffic offences. Parents got a handout explaining what the procedure would be if their son was arrested and charged with different type offences.
There had been a serious assault involving past pupils resulting in a few lads facing a prison sentence. They were kept in custody for a few days while waiting for bail terms to be agreed and it opened their eyes to what they might be facing
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 24, 2018, 07:40:58 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 24, 2018, 10:13:46 AM
I would tend to agree with MR2. Given her background and who she was there is a high likelihood that she knew Jackson at least. She may never have met him nor knew what he was like but it's not a huge jump to suggest that she knew who he was. It is supposition I know but a pretty educated guess.

If I remember correctly it said in earlier evidence that she has had met him once before when she was working as a promotions girl I think and had handed him a pint of Guinness which would have wemt against her saying she hadn't seen/met him before
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 24, 2018, 08:37:23 PM
If she went to a Belfast grammar school she has heard of Jackson. To suggest otherwise is rubbish.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 24, 2018, 08:55:00 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 24, 2018, 08:44:32 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 24, 2018, 08:37:23 PM
If she went to a Belfast grammar school she has heard of Jackson. To suggest otherwise is rubbish.
That's crazy, Tony.
Not in the slightest. Obviously excluding fenian schools.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 24, 2018, 09:07:52 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 24, 2018, 08:37:23 PM
If she went to a Belfast grammar school she has heard of Jackson. To suggest otherwise is rubbish.

I believe they went to the same school albeit it not at the same time. If she did she knew who he was, no doubt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RealSpiritof98 on March 25, 2018, 04:32:05 AM
The worrying aspect for me is this  I've been at two round table events during this trial and the men have been in favour of the men and the women have strongly been on the side of the alleged victim. The thing it we live in a pc society that doesn't actor behave in a pc way.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 25, 2018, 08:38:50 AM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/nicola-anderson-at-rugby-rape-trial-draw-a-distinction-between-consent-and-submission-jury-told-36740003.html

"The complaint at the heart of the case had been "devoid of detail" – and that inconsistencies in the alleged victim's account were not down to "trauma" but "wild exaggeration" and "downright false allegation".
He said the woman's evidence was of "hopeless quality", adding that "the investigation, testing and evaluation of this complaint was at best poor – at worst virtually non-existent".


"

Standard adversarial defence

But the judge :

""Consent has a particular legal meaning," she pointed out. "A woman consents if she agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."

The young woman had told the jury she did not consent. Mr Jackson told them that not only did she consent to sexual activity, but that she had instigated it.

Then the judge warned them that when considering the issue of consent, it is important "to draw a distinction between consent and submission".

"Consent in some situations may be given enthusiastically, whereas in others it is given with reluctance – but nevertheless it is still consent," she said.

"Where, however, a woman is so overcome by fear that she lacks any capacity either to give consent or to resist, that woman does not consent but is submitting to what takes place."

And she said the prosecution does not have to prove that a woman resisted physically or that she said she did not consent.

Here, Judge Smyth advised the jury to apply their "combined good sense, experience and knowledge of human behaviour and modern behaviour to all the relevant facts"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on March 25, 2018, 09:49:50 AM
For Syberus...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-kWbvWYAnvY

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 25, 2018, 12:00:22 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 24, 2018, 08:52:53 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:07:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 10:44:23 PM
There you go again. She got herself into "this situation". There was no "situation" until she was allegedly raped.
I would consider a 19 year old girl being drunk in a house with 4 very drunk men she doesn't know "a situation".
Earlier you said this situation fell into the 90% of cases where the perp is known to or acquainted with the victim. Now you're saying she didn't know them. Which is it?
We were talking about a study you mentioned which said that 90% of victims knew or were acquainted with their abusers and you asked if I was suggesting that people would have to stop socialising with people they know in order to prevent attacks. I said I imagined she would fall into the 90% category rather than the other 10% depending on how they defined that.

We know how well they knew each other. PJ couldn't remember her name and she couldn't remember Olding's.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 25, 2018, 01:35:27 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 25, 2018, 12:00:22 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 24, 2018, 08:52:53 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:07:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 10:44:23 PM
There you go again. She got herself into "this situation". There was no "situation" until she was allegedly raped.
I would consider a 19 year old girl being drunk in a house with 4 very drunk men she doesn't know "a situation".
Earlier you said this situation fell into the 90% of cases where the perp is known to or acquainted with the victim. Now you're saying she didn't know them. Which is it?
We were talking about a study you mentioned which said that 90% of victims knew or were acquainted with their abusers and you asked if I was suggesting that people would have to stop socialising with people they know in order to prevent attacks. I said I imagined she would fall into the 90% category rather than the other 10% depending on how they defined that.

We know how well they knew each other. PJ couldn't remember her name and she couldn't remember Olding's.

Quit while you're behind.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 25, 2018, 01:53:55 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 25, 2018, 01:35:27 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 25, 2018, 12:00:22 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 24, 2018, 08:52:53 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 23, 2018, 11:07:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 23, 2018, 10:44:23 PM
There you go again. She got herself into "this situation". There was no "situation" until she was allegedly raped.
I would consider a 19 year old girl being drunk in a house with 4 very drunk men she doesn't know "a situation".
Earlier you said this situation fell into the 90% of cases where the perp is known to or acquainted with the victim. Now you're saying she didn't know them. Which is it?
We were talking about a study you mentioned which said that 90% of victims knew or were acquainted with their abusers and you asked if I was suggesting that people would have to stop socialising with people they know in order to prevent attacks. I said I imagined she would fall into the 90% category rather than the other 10% depending on how they defined that.

We know how well they knew each other. PJ couldn't remember her name and she couldn't remember Olding's.

Quit while you're behind.

Doesn't seem to stop you blabbering on
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 01:01:16 PM
Judge Smyth on the investigation by the PSNI (to the jury):

"Your function is not to sit in judgement on the competency of the police or to punish them for their perceived failures"

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 26, 2018, 02:46:15 PM
Seems strange that they should give no weight to the fact that Olding was originally charged of vaginal raped only for that to be dropped. . . why would it need to be mentioned at all then?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 26, 2018, 02:49:08 PM
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/a-woman-is-entitled-to-say-no-jurors-at-rugby-rape-trial-told-36744518.html
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 03:00:05 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 26, 2018, 02:46:15 PM
Seems strange that they should give no weight to the fact that Olding was originally charged of vaginal raped only for that to be dropped. . . why would it need to be mentioned at all then?

Not sure, maybe she doesn't want the jury to infer that the complainant might have changed her story/been mistaken/forgotten etc from the fact that the charge was changed??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 26, 2018, 03:02:39 PM
She likely did it on the considerable chance that at least some members of the jury would have been aware of that charge and was warning them not to let that influence their thinking around the actual charge he is on trial for.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:09:37 PM
Judge Smyth still to complete her direction but is expected to finish tomorrow.  Jury expected to begin deliberation at some stage tomorrow.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 26, 2018, 04:40:10 PM
A police interview where the alleged victim gives their account without probing questions from the police is hardly the best way to get at the truth in a rape case like this. An hour long interview without mention of DF or how her top came to be off just raises more questions and doubt imo. It would obviously be a traumatic experience but I'd have thought if the interview was handled delicately by female officers, they could explain to her that they have to ask a few questions about the details of what happened. It's going to be a hugely upsetting process for all concerned regardless.

That method(not asking questions of the complainant) of handling an interview is unfair to the accused and would make it more likely that a false allegation would go all the way to court.

I would have thought also that questions about the removal of her clothes and whether anyone else witnessed what happened would be among the most glaringly obvious.

I don't think the jury can discount these omissions from her police interview when assessing if there's a reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitey on March 26, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 26, 2018, 04:58:07 PM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?

Are you sure about that?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 26, 2018, 05:02:40 PM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?

Let he without sin cast the first stone.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitey on March 26, 2018, 06:08:35 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 26, 2018, 05:02:40 PM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?

Let he without sin cast the first stone.

Haha....take it very handy these days myself, but if she was hammered, it could explain the inconsistencies
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 26, 2018, 06:10:40 PM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 06:08:35 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 26, 2018, 05:02:40 PM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?

Let he without sin cast the first stone.

Haha....take it very handy these days myself, but if she was hammered, it could explain the inconsistencies

Or.. you know, she might have had a traumatic experience..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitey on March 26, 2018, 08:18:37 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 26, 2018, 06:10:40 PM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 06:08:35 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 26, 2018, 05:02:40 PM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?

Let he without sin cast the first stone.

Haha....take it very handy these days myself, but if she was hammered, it could explain the inconsistencies

Or.. you know, she might have had a traumatic experience..

Or a combination of both
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Sweeper 123 on March 26, 2018, 09:09:34 PM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 08:18:37 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 26, 2018, 06:10:40 PM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 06:08:35 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 26, 2018, 05:02:40 PM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?

Let he without sin cast the first stone.

Haha....take it very handy these days myself, but if she was hammered, it could explain the inconsistencies

Or.. you know, she might have had a traumatic experience..

Or a combination of both

or maybe she is just lying
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 26, 2018, 09:34:03 PM
She might be lying. The lads are definitely lying though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 26, 2018, 09:50:07 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 26, 2018, 09:34:03 PM
She might be lying. The lads are definitely lying though.

But was anyone raped?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 12:21:49 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 26, 2018, 09:50:07 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 26, 2018, 09:34:03 PM
She might be lying. The lads are definitely lying though.

But was anyone raped?

I've no idea. My point is that the jury will have to decide if she's lying. They KNOW some of the lads are lying. Whether that's because they raped her and covered it up is a different matter.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2018, 12:27:20 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 12:21:49 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 26, 2018, 09:50:07 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 26, 2018, 09:34:03 PM
She might be lying. The lads are definitely lying though.

But was anyone raped?

I've no idea. My point is that the jury will have to decide if she's lying. They KNOW some of the lads are lying. Whether that's because they raped her and covered it up is a different matter.

Did the girl lie about knowing PJ or the other girl walking in?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 01:16:50 AM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?

Which "mate" was this, now?

The "mate" who wasn't her mate at all?

A couple of weeks back you were saying that it was the complainant that was getting sick, so this is the second time you've displayed yourself unaware of a basic fact regarding the same specific detail of the case.

You'll get there in the end.

Maybe.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitey on March 27, 2018, 02:56:11 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 01:16:50 AM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?

Which "mate" was this, now?

The "mate" who wasn't her mate at all?

A couple of weeks back you were saying that it was the complainant that was getting sick, so this is the second time you've displayed yourself unaware of a basic fact regarding the same specific detail of the case.

You'll get there in the end.

Maybe.

LOL......youre very touchy.....does shagging paralytic drunk birds hit a little close to home for you?

I misread the original newspaper article and another poster corrected me and said no, it was her friend. Maybe he was wrong too.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/rape-trial-ireland-rugby-player-olding-embarrassed-of-immature-boasting-whatsapp-messages-36685172.html

One of the parties involved had 22 alcoholic beverages

Someone else is projectile vomiting in the bathroom

The victim herself has given conflicting evidence and contradictory statements

If she too was impaired, that would possibly explain the inconsistencies
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 27, 2018, 07:40:07 AM
It isn't called the demon drink for nothing!

Heading for a hung jury, no way anyone could navigate through this mess and come to a decision with which they can be completely happy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on March 27, 2018, 08:23:57 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 27, 2018, 07:40:07 AM
It isn't called the demon drink for nothing!

Heading for a hung jury, no way anyone could navigate through this mess and come to a decision with which they can be completely happy.

Will it be well hung tho....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: whitey on March 27, 2018, 02:56:11 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 01:16:50 AM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?

Which "mate" was this, now?

The "mate" who wasn't her mate at all?

A couple of weeks back you were saying that it was the complainant that was getting sick, so this is the second time you've displayed yourself unaware of a basic fact regarding the same specific detail of the case.

You'll get there in the end.

Maybe.

LOL......youre very touchy.....does shagging paralytic drunk birds hit a little close to home for you?

I misread the original newspaper article and another poster corrected me and said no, it was her friend. Maybe he was wrong too.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/rape-trial-ireland-rugby-player-olding-embarrassed-of-immature-boasting-whatsapp-messages-36685172.html

One of the parties involved had 22 alcoholic beverages

Someone else is projectile vomiting in the bathroom

The victim herself has given conflicting evidence and contradictory statements

If she too was impaired, that would possibly explain the inconsistencies

Why don't you read some facts before posting up horseshit here? It's well documented the amounts of alcohol taken by the alleged victim and others in this case. And none of her friends were in the house.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 08:58:06 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 27, 2018, 07:40:07 AM
It isn't called the demon drink for nothing!

Heading for a hung jury, no way anyone could navigate through this mess and come to a decision with which they can be completely happy.

Yeah, if this board is representative of the jury then a hung jury must be odds on (after a couple of bouts of fisticuffs in the jury room!)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 27, 2018, 08:59:08 AM
http://www.irishnews.com/news/2018/03/27/news/one-in-eight-victims-waiting-almost-three-years-for-justice-in-northern-ireland-s-grossly-inefficient-court-system-1288208/ (http://www.irishnews.com/news/2018/03/27/news/one-in-eight-victims-waiting-almost-three-years-for-justice-in-northern-ireland-s-grossly-inefficient-court-system-1288208/)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 27, 2018, 09:43:47 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 27, 2018, 08:59:08 AM
http://www.irishnews.com/news/2018/03/27/news/one-in-eight-victims-waiting-almost-three-years-for-justice-in-northern-ireland-s-grossly-inefficient-court-system-1288208/ (http://www.irishnews.com/news/2018/03/27/news/one-in-eight-victims-waiting-almost-three-years-for-justice-in-northern-ireland-s-grossly-inefficient-court-system-1288208/)
A very damning but unsurprising report......

"He found PSNI file quality is so poor that the majority of Crown Court case files examined either had "errors or omissions meaning the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) were unable to make a prosecutorial decision... or contained significant omissions in the core evidence provided".

The report details "heightened stress and inconvenience (imposed) upon victims, defendants and witnesses", with two thirds who attended court ultimately not required to give evidence."

They totally botched this one too. If they'd acted like police rather than the samaritans when interviewing the girl, it's more likely they would have either gotten a conviction or the case would never have made it to court, depending on her answers to the all too obvious questions that were never asked.


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 27, 2018, 09:54:08 AM
So is today D Day then??!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 10:06:28 AM
I think Olding has the most to worry about.

I don't see any way how Jackson can be convicted of either rape or sexual assault but Olding not convicted of rape.

But Jackson being acquitted of both charges doesn't necessarily mean Olding is in the clear.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 10:09:23 AM
I would have thought Olding was the least in danger, given the witness statement. I suppose if Olding is not guilty, it would be hard to prosecute Jackson as well, given how they are linked, but Jackson sounds like such a liar.

McIlroy is the one I think could potentially be done for exposing himself. Not sure about Harrison, he might be on a sticky wicket for destroying messages alright.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 27, 2018, 10:11:22 AM
Quote from: screenexile on March 27, 2018, 09:54:08 AM
So is today D Day then??!
Think they're expected to retire to consider the verdict today. Am I right in thinking that a majority of 10 is needed for a verdict?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 10:15:20 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 27, 2018, 10:11:22 AM
Quote from: screenexile on March 27, 2018, 09:54:08 AM
So is today D Day then??!
Think they're expected to retire to consider the verdict today. Am I right in thinking that a majority of 10 is needed for a verdict?

Yes a majority of 10 is needed if not unanimous. I think PJ could very easily be convicted of sexual assault but found not guilty of rape. He openly admits to using his fingers. If non-consent is accepted but they cannot prove the penile penetration then he will be found guilty of sexual assault
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 10:16:11 AM
If any of you are reading the judges direction it is greatly at odds with the prevailing view here I think.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 27, 2018, 10:18:51 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 10:16:11 AM
If any of you are reading the judges direction it is greatly at odds with the prevailing view here I think.

In what way Seanie? Have not read it so cant comment
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 10:16:11 AM
If any of you are reading the judges direction it is greatly at odds with the prevailing view here I think.

I thought that too seanie. The bits of direction we are quoted here almost gives the girl a bye ball for any inconsistencies, which I thought was a bit surprising.

Mind you, she also said that the jury should not place too much emphasis on the whatsapp messages between the lads, as young men embellish and exaggerate their conquests.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 27, 2018, 10:21:12 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 10:09:23 AM
I would have thought Olding was the least in danger, given the witness statement. I suppose if Olding is not guilty, it would be hard to prosecute Jackson as well, given how they are linked, but Jackson sounds like such a liar.

McIlroy is the one I think could potentially be done for exposing himself. Not sure about Harrison, he might be on a sticky wicket for destroying messages alright.
+1

The case against SO is weaker than the one against PJ but the jury would be ridiculed in the media if they convicted PJ and acquitted Olding. It could be interpreted as the jury believing that Jackson raped her and then she consented to oral sex with Olding which would be obviously ludicrous.

Can't see either of these 2 being convicted of anything though PJ does seem to be lying about penetration.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 27, 2018, 10:23:17 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 10:16:11 AM
If any of you are reading the judges direction it is greatly at odds with the prevailing view here I think.

I thought that too seanie. The bits of direction we are quoted here almost gives the girl a bye ball for any inconsistencies, which I thought was a bit surprising.

Mind you, she also said that the jury should not place too much emphasis on the whatsapp messages between the lads, as young men embellish and exaggerate their conquests.

Is that necessarily helpful for the defendants BC? I know it was debated on here that the tone in the Whatsapps was almost being heralded as a defense i.e. they were quite open about their "conquest" which you would not expect if they believed they had committed a rape?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 27, 2018, 10:26:01 AM
I thought some of the judge's directions were unfair on the accused. She seemed to be telling them to ignore the sloppy police work when surely that same sloppiness raises a reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 10:27:29 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 10:16:11 AM
If any of you are reading the judges direction it is greatly at odds with the prevailing view here I think.

I thought that too seanie. The bits of direction we are quoted here almost gives the girl a bye ball for any inconsistencies, which I thought was a bit surprising.

Mind you, she also said that the jury should not place too much emphasis on the whatsapp messages between the lads, as young men embellish and exaggerate their conquests.

Talk to a psychiatrist and it's not even up for discussion.....this is accpted fact. One I wasn't aware of and I think one very many refuse to accept. The minor inconsistencies in the alleged victims account are perfectly consistent with rape cases. That along with the "submitting" as opposed to fighting back were two things I hadn't appreciated and which closed any doubts I had as to the alleged victims story.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitey on March 27, 2018, 10:33:58 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: whitey on March 27, 2018, 02:56:11 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 01:16:50 AM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?

Which "mate" was this, now?

The "mate" who wasn't her mate at all?

A couple of weeks back you were saying that it was the complainant that was getting sick, so this is the second time you've displayed yourself unaware of a basic fact regarding the same specific detail of the case.

You'll get there in the end.

Maybe.

LOL......youre very touchy.....does shagging paralytic drunk birds hit a little close to home for you?

I misread the original newspaper article and another poster corrected me and said no, it was her friend. Maybe he was wrong too.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/rape-trial-ireland-rugby-player-olding-embarrassed-of-immature-boasting-whatsapp-messages-36685172.html

One of the parties involved had 22 alcoholic beverages

Someone else is projectile vomiting in the bathroom

The victim herself has given conflicting evidence and contradictory statements

If she too was impaired, that would possibly explain the inconsistencies

Why don't you read some facts before posting up horseshit here? It's well documented the amounts of alcohol taken by the alleged victim and others in this case. And none of her friends were in the house.


Well then answer the fvckin question then.....how much did she have to drink?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 10:50:04 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 10:27:29 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 10:16:11 AM
If any of you are reading the judges direction it is greatly at odds with the prevailing view here I think.

I thought that too seanie. The bits of direction we are quoted here almost gives the girl a bye ball for any inconsistencies, which I thought was a bit surprising.

Mind you, she also said that the jury should not place too much emphasis on the whatsapp messages between the lads, as young men embellish and exaggerate their conquests.

Talk to a psychiatrist and it's not even up for discussion.....this is accpted fact. One I wasn't aware of and I think one very many refuse to accept. The minor inconsistencies in the alleged victims account are perfectly consistent with rape cases. That along with the "submitting" as opposed to fighting back were two things I hadn't appreciated and which closed any doubts I had as to the alleged victims story.

True Seanie.  It's very hard to understand how you wouldn't fight or scream, especially in a crowded house, but this is, as you say, accepted fact in the case of rape.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: shezam on March 27, 2018, 10:55:11 AM
Quote from: whitey on March 27, 2018, 10:33:58 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: whitey on March 27, 2018, 02:56:11 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 01:16:50 AM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?

Which "mate" was this, now?

The "mate" who wasn't her mate at all?

A couple of weeks back you were saying that it was the complainant that was getting sick, so this is the second time you've displayed yourself unaware of a basic fact regarding the same specific detail of the case.

You'll get there in the end.

Maybe.

LOL......youre very touchy.....does shagging paralytic drunk birds hit a little close to home for you?

I misread the original newspaper article and another poster corrected me and said no, it was her friend. Maybe he was wrong too.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/rape-trial-ireland-rugby-player-olding-embarrassed-of-immature-boasting-whatsapp-messages-36685172.html

One of the parties involved had 22 alcoholic beverages

Someone else is projectile vomiting in the bathroom

The victim herself has given conflicting evidence and contradictory statements

If she too was impaired, that would possibly explain the inconsistencies

Why don't you read some facts before posting up horseshit here? It's well documented the amounts of alcohol taken by the alleged victim and others in this case. And none of her friends were in the house.


Well then answer the fvckin question then.....how much did she have to drink?

The woman told the trial during her evidence she had one and a half glasses of wine and three double vodkas during the night.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tintin25 on March 27, 2018, 10:58:07 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 27, 2018, 10:21:12 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 10:09:23 AM
I would have thought Olding was the least in danger, given the witness statement. I suppose if Olding is not guilty, it would be hard to prosecute Jackson as well, given how they are linked, but Jackson sounds like such a liar.

McIlroy is the one I think could potentially be done for exposing himself. Not sure about Harrison, he might be on a sticky wicket for destroying messages alright.
+1

The case against SO is weaker than the one against PJ but the jury would be ridiculed in the media if they convicted PJ and acquitted Olding. It could be interpreted as the jury believing that Jackson raped her and then she consented to oral sex with Olding which would be obviously ludicrous.

Can't see either of these 2 being convicted of anything though PJ does seem to be lying about penetration.

Is it that ludicrous though?

My own personal thought is that she has consented to a point and that Jackson has taken it too far.

Thing is, everyone will have a different take on what they think happened....we'll never know.

Let's just see what the Jury decide.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 27, 2018, 11:01:15 AM
Quote from: shezam on March 27, 2018, 10:55:11 AM
Quote from: whitey on March 27, 2018, 10:33:58 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: whitey on March 27, 2018, 02:56:11 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 01:16:50 AM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?

Which "mate" was this, now?

The "mate" who wasn't her mate at all?

A couple of weeks back you were saying that it was the complainant that was getting sick, so this is the second time you've displayed yourself unaware of a basic fact regarding the same specific detail of the case.

You'll get there in the end.

Maybe.

LOL......youre very touchy.....does shagging paralytic drunk birds hit a little close to home for you?

I misread the original newspaper article and another poster corrected me and said no, it was her friend. Maybe he was wrong too.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/rape-trial-ireland-rugby-player-olding-embarrassed-of-immature-boasting-whatsapp-messages-36685172.html

One of the parties involved had 22 alcoholic beverages

Someone else is projectile vomiting in the bathroom

The victim herself has given conflicting evidence and contradictory statements

If she too was impaired, that would possibly explain the inconsistencies

Why don't you read some facts before posting up horseshit here? It's well documented the amounts of alcohol taken by the alleged victim and others in this case. And none of her friends were in the house.


Well then answer the fvckin question then.....how much did she have to drink?

The woman told the trial during her evidence she had one and a half glasses of wine and three double vodkas during the night.

99.9% sure there was a video of her played during the trial which showed her uneasy on her feet in a VIP section. Would you say that quantity gets a woman drunk? Probably would? Uneasy on feet? Not sure.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 27, 2018, 11:21:14 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 10:16:11 AM
If any of you are reading the judges direction it is greatly at odds with the prevailing view here I think.

I thought that too seanie. The bits of direction we are quoted here almost gives the girl a bye ball for any inconsistencies, which I thought was a bit surprising.

Mind you, she also said that the jury should not place too much emphasis on the whatsapp messages between the lads, as young men embellish and exaggerate their conquests.

Not today!!!

Quote"If you believe she lied or made false allegations, then you need to exercise extreme caution in your approach to her evidence, in particular whether you feel you can safely rely on the account she later gave to police," she said.

"If you feel she has actually lied to Dr. Lavery about the accused, then I am directing you not to rely on her complaints in relation to the first three defendants (Jackson, Olding & McIlroy) unless you find there's other independent evidence to support what she says".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 27, 2018, 11:22:11 AM
Quote from: screenexile on March 27, 2018, 09:54:08 AM
So is today D Day then??!

Could be. Depends how long they deliberate. Could be 20mins, could be a week. I would guess a quick deliberation would be a sign they are walking.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 27, 2018, 11:23:34 AM
Quote from: screenexile on March 27, 2018, 11:21:14 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 10:16:11 AM
If any of you are reading the judges direction it is greatly at odds with the prevailing view here I think.

I thought that too seanie. The bits of direction we are quoted here almost gives the girl a bye ball for any inconsistencies, which I thought was a bit surprising.

Mind you, she also said that the jury should not place too much emphasis on the whatsapp messages between the lads, as young men embellish and exaggerate their conquests.

Not today!!!

Quote"If you believe she lied or made false allegations, then you need to exercise extreme caution in your approach to her evidence, in particular whether you feel you can safely rely on the account she later gave to police," she said.

"If you feel she has actually lied to Dr. Lavery about the accused, then I am directing you not to rely on her complaints in relation to the first three defendants (Jackson, Olding & McIlroy) unless you find there's other independent evidence to support what she says".

Whao.
After yesterdays judge statements I thought they could be done - but definitely not after hearing that.

Has the judge contradicted herself?

f**k this is one confusing case
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 11:24:56 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 10:50:04 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 10:27:29 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 10:16:11 AM
If any of you are reading the judges direction it is greatly at odds with the prevailing view here I think.

I thought that too seanie. The bits of direction we are quoted here almost gives the girl a bye ball for any inconsistencies, which I thought was a bit surprising.

Mind you, she also said that the jury should not place too much emphasis on the whatsapp messages between the lads, as young men embellish and exaggerate their conquests.

Talk to a psychiatrist and it's not even up for discussion.....this is accpted fact. One I wasn't aware of and I think one very many refuse to accept. The minor inconsistencies in the alleged victims account are perfectly consistent with rape cases. That along with the "submitting" as opposed to fighting back were two things I hadn't appreciated and which closed any doubts I had as to the alleged victims story.

True Seanie.  It's very hard to understand how you wouldn't fight or scream, especially in a crowded house, but this is, as you say, accepted fact in the case of rape.

Apparently it's harder to understand the lack of screaming by the complainant given that she was in a house in which there were three "middle class girls".

"Middle class girls" are apparently uniquely abhorred by rape compared to "girls" of any other social class, at least if one is to listen to Frank O'Donoghue QC.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 11:26:11 AM
the confusion is because we are not there. This reporting in snippets and without context makes everything confusing, and adds weight to certain things, while trivialising others. In reality, depending on context in the courtroom, the relative importance might be completely different.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hardy on March 27, 2018, 11:27:53 AM
Is my indicator working?
- Yes, no, yes, no ....

Some people don't seem to be able to remember the first clause in a two-clause sentence after they've read the second.

That's what scares me about juries - some of them may believe they've now been directed by the judge to disregard the complainant's evidence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 11:38:07 AM
Lads the role of the judge needs to be clarified here. She has to give them all the evidence and let them weigh it all up. The timing of this is very important in my view. She give the direction yesterday which would have swayed jurors towards guilt. Then she let them sleep On that and is now giving the other side and this will be foremost in their minds when they go into their deliberations. That is the way it's is always done, but the time gap could be vital as this will have potentially lessened their opinion due to having slept on it but it could have the converse effect and they could have hardened their views. It's really hard to tell but I think they'll find it difficult to get a 10 majority either way and the jury will be hung and there will be no retrial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 27, 2018, 11:42:18 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 11:38:07 AM
Lads the role of the judge needs to be clarified here. She has to give them all the evidence and let them weigh it all up. The timing of this is very important in my view. She give the direction yesterday which would have swayed jurors towards guilt. Then she let them sleep On that and is now giving the other side and this will be foremost in their minds when they go into their deliberations. That is the way it's is always done, but the time gap could be vital as this will have potentially lessened their opinion due to having slept on it but it could have the converse effect and they could have hardened their views. It's really hard to tell but I think they'll find it difficult to get a 10 majority either way and the jury will be hung and there will be no retrial.
Re. a not guilty verdict, do they tell you the split or do they just say not guilty?  Would the public know that it was 10-1, 7-4 etc etc?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 11:44:09 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 27, 2018, 11:22:11 AM
Quote from: screenexile on March 27, 2018, 09:54:08 AM
So is today D Day then??!

Could be. Depends how long they deliberate. Could be 20mins, could be a week. I would guess a quick deliberation would be a sign they are walking.

You'd guess wrong. Statistically, quick deliberations favour guilty verdicts.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitey on March 27, 2018, 11:46:21 AM
Quote from: shezam on March 27, 2018, 10:55:11 AM
Quote from: whitey on March 27, 2018, 10:33:58 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: whitey on March 27, 2018, 02:56:11 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 01:16:50 AM
Quote from: whitey on March 26, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 26, 2018, 04:49:33 PM
"Judge Smyth is now going through some of the inconsistencies in the woman's account like the fact she initially told police Blane McIlroy came into the room with his trousers down. She told jurors he was 'completely naked'.

When you come to consider whether her account is true, you must avoid making the assumption that because she said something different to someone else, the evidence she gave to you is untrue.  Experience has shown that inconsistencies in accounts can arise whether a person is telling the truth or not because memory can be affected in different ways and may have a bearing on a person's ability to take it in, register it and recall it".

You might say that applies to the defendants too, but here the judge was specifically referring to the complainant.

Her mate was barfing in the jacks before all this kicked off......how much alcohol did the unfortunate victim have on board?

Which "mate" was this, now?

The "mate" who wasn't her mate at all?

A couple of weeks back you were saying that it was the complainant that was getting sick, so this is the second time you've displayed yourself unaware of a basic fact regarding the same specific detail of the case.

You'll get there in the end.

Maybe.

LOL......youre very touchy.....does shagging paralytic drunk birds hit a little close to home for you?

I misread the original newspaper article and another poster corrected me and said no, it was her friend. Maybe he was wrong too.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/rape-trial-ireland-rugby-player-olding-embarrassed-of-immature-boasting-whatsapp-messages-36685172.html

One of the parties involved had 22 alcoholic beverages

Someone else is projectile vomiting in the bathroom

The victim herself has given conflicting evidence and contradictory statements

If she too was impaired, that would possibly explain the inconsistencies

Why don't you read some facts before posting up horseshit here? It's well documented the amounts of alcohol taken by the alleged victim and others in this case. And none of her friends were in the house.


Well then answer the fvckin question then.....how much did she have to drink?

The woman told the trial during her evidence she had one and a half glasses of wine and three double vodkas during the night.

Thank you
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 11:51:18 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 11:38:07 AM
Lads the role of the judge needs to be clarified here. She has to give them all the evidence and let them weigh it all up. The timing of this is very important in my view. She give the direction yesterday which would have swayed jurors towards guilt. Then she let them sleep On that and is now giving the other side and this will be foremost in their minds when they go into their deliberations. That is the way it's is always done, but the time gap could be vital as this will have potentially lessened their opinion due to having slept on it but it could have the converse effect and they could have hardened their views. It's really hard to tell but I think they'll find it difficult to get a 10 majority either way and the jury will be hung and there will be no retrial.
Does anybody have any statistics for how many rape trials, UK or otherwise, result in a hung jury?

I know the Otto Putland case was one but the question is what percentage of all rape trials result in such?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 11:55:20 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 27, 2018, 11:42:18 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 11:38:07 AM
Lads the role of the judge needs to be clarified here. She has to give them all the evidence and let them weigh it all up. The timing of this is very important in my view. She give the direction yesterday which would have swayed jurors towards guilt. Then she let them sleep On that and is now giving the other side and this will be foremost in their minds when they go into their deliberations. That is the way it's is always done, but the time gap could be vital as this will have potentially lessened their opinion due to having slept on it but it could have the converse effect and they could have hardened their views. It's really hard to tell but I think they'll find it difficult to get a 10 majority either way and the jury will be hung and there will be no retrial.
Re. a not guilty verdict, do they tell you the split or do they just say not guilty?  Would the public know that it was 10-1, 7-4 etc etc?

It's been a while but my understanding is that in a guilty verdict the jury can be asked to state who voted what way if it's a majority verdict but cannot in the case of an acquittal.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 12:31:37 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 11:38:07 AM
Lads the role of the judge needs to be clarified here. She has to give them all the evidence and let them weigh it all up. The timing of this is very important in my view. She give the direction yesterday which would have swayed jurors towards guilt. Then she let them sleep On that and is now giving the other side and this will be foremost in their minds when they go into their deliberations. That is the way it's is always done, but the time gap could be vital as this will have potentially lessened their opinion due to having slept on it but it could have the converse effect and they could have hardened their views. It's really hard to tell but I think they'll find it difficult to get a 10 majority either way and the jury will be hung and there will be no retrial.

Again, thanks for your insight (goes for the others who have knowledge and experience in the area too - most informative). I've learned a lot on this thread, making the other BS just about worth it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 27, 2018, 12:47:08 PM
Deliberations have started . . . can any of the legal eagles give an estimate if this will finish today or most likely tomorrow?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/DUuyU3KyYGLNS/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 27, 2018, 12:50:13 PM
I expect outrage no matter the verdict. I don't think there is any winner here only the barristers, solicitors and legal teams. Pity the jurors in a case befuddled by so many grey areas.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 12:55:08 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 27, 2018, 12:50:13 PM
I expect outrage no matter the verdict. I don't think there is any winner here only the barristers, solicitors and legal teams. Pity the jurors in a case befuddled by so many grey areas.

If there's outrage because of a guilty verdict those people should hang their heads in shame. Incredibly hard to get a rape conviction to stick and every metric is in favour of them getting off.

The woman would be a clear winner in that outcome, and would be a hero for women in her position in the future (she already is, in many ways) so to think otherwise is sticking your head in the sand and drawing yet more false equilvences in a thread filled with them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 12:55:19 PM
BCB, what does this mean? A majority verdict is not going to be enough?

Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
7m7 minutes ago
More
Before asking them to retire to their jury room, Judge Smyth tells the jurors she can only accept a unanimous verdict - so all eleven must be in agreement.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 27, 2018, 12:55:44 PM
Was just going to post that AZ
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 27, 2018, 12:59:32 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 12:55:19 PM
BCB, what does this mean? A majority verdict is not going to be enough?

Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
7m7 minutes ago
More
Before asking them to retire to their jury room, Judge Smyth tells the jurors she can only accept a unanimous verdict - so all eleven must be in agreement.

I think i read that initially she wants only unanimous. If it can't be decided that way then they will go for majority.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Sweeper 123 on March 27, 2018, 01:00:09 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 12:55:08 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 27, 2018, 12:50:13 PM
I expect outrage no matter the verdict. I don't think there is any winner here only the barristers, solicitors and legal teams. Pity the jurors in a case befuddled by so many grey areas.

If there's outrage because of a guilty verdict those people should hang their heads in shame. Incredibly hard to get a rape conviction to stick and every metric is in favour of them getting off.

Sef and if theres a not guilty verdict should their be outrage at the girl wasting tax payers money?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 01:01:58 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 27, 2018, 01:00:09 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 12:55:08 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 27, 2018, 12:50:13 PM
I expect outrage no matter the verdict. I don't think there is any winner here only the barristers, solicitors and legal teams. Pity the jurors in a case befuddled by so many grey areas.

If there's outrage because of a guilty verdict those people should hang their heads in shame. Incredibly hard to get a rape conviction to stick and every metric is in favour of them getting off.

Sef and if theres a not guilty verdict should their be outrage at the girl wasting tax payers money?

A verdict of not guilty is not the same as innocence.

By the way, it is the State that has brought charges against the 'Top Shaggers', not the woman.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on March 27, 2018, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 01:01:58 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 27, 2018, 01:00:09 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 12:55:08 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 27, 2018, 12:50:13 PM
I expect outrage no matter the verdict. I don't think there is any winner here only the barristers, solicitors and legal teams. Pity the jurors in a case befuddled by so many grey areas.

If there's outrage because of a guilty verdict those people should hang their heads in shame. Incredibly hard to get a rape conviction to stick and every metric is in favour of them getting off.

Sef and if theres a not guilty verdict should their be outrage at the girl wasting tax payers money?

A verdict of not guilty is not the same as innocence.

By the way, it is the State that has brought charges against the 'Top Shaggers', not the woman.

It's the Public Prosecution Service
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 01:04:38 PM
Quote from: longballin on March 27, 2018, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 01:01:58 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 27, 2018, 01:00:09 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 12:55:08 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 27, 2018, 12:50:13 PM
I expect outrage no matter the verdict. I don't think there is any winner here only the barristers, solicitors and legal teams. Pity the jurors in a case befuddled by so many grey areas.

If there's outrage because of a guilty verdict those people should hang their heads in shame. Incredibly hard to get a rape conviction to stick and every metric is in favour of them getting off.

Sef and if theres a not guilty verdict should their be outrage at the girl wasting tax payers money?

A verdict of not guilty is not the same as innocence.

By the way, it is the State that has brought charges against the 'Top Shaggers', not the woman.

It's the Public Prosecution Service

The key is in the 'Public' part, longballin..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 01:10:06 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 27, 2018, 12:59:32 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 12:55:19 PM
BCB, what does this mean? A majority verdict is not going to be enough?

Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
7m7 minutes ago
More
Before asking them to retire to their jury room, Judge Smyth tells the jurors she can only accept a unanimous verdict - so all eleven must be in agreement.

I think i read that initially she wants only unanimous. If it can't be decided that way then they will go for majority.

The judge has an authority to demand a unanimous verdict. It is her prerogative to refuse to accept a majority. Given that there is a juror down maybe she wants a unanimous verdict. She can say that a majority verdict is acceptable after this stage. This to me smells like a hung jury and the establishment happy for a hung jury and no retrial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 27, 2018, 01:10:52 PM
Minimum of 2hr 45min deliberation and they started at 12.40pm. I'm nervous and I've zero vested interest in this trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 27, 2018, 01:12:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 12:55:08 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 27, 2018, 12:50:13 PM
I expect outrage no matter the verdict. I don't think there is any winner here only the barristers, solicitors and legal teams. Pity the jurors in a case befuddled by so many grey areas.

If there's outrage because of a guilty verdict those people should hang their heads in shame. Incredibly hard to get a rape conviction to stick and every metric is in favour of them getting off.

The woman would be a clear winner in that outcome, and would be a hero for women in her position in the future (she already is, in many ways) so to think otherwise is sticking your head in the sand and drawing yet more false equilvences in a thread filled with them.

I actually agree with your first sentence because for me I think we have to trust the jury to arrive at the correct decision. My guess is that there will be a guilty verdict bestowed on either one or all of Jackson (on lesser charge), McIlroy or Harrison. Possibly McIlroy being the most likely to be charged. Olding looks the least likely to be found gulity imo. Just to clarify, in that case I would expect there to be recriminations as to who got off given the different levels of alleged offences.   
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 01:12:48 PM
Quote from: Sweeper 123 on March 27, 2018, 01:00:09 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 12:55:08 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 27, 2018, 12:50:13 PM
I expect outrage no matter the verdict. I don't think there is any winner here only the barristers, solicitors and legal teams. Pity the jurors in a case befuddled by so many grey areas.

If there's outrage because of a guilty verdict those people should hang their heads in shame. Incredibly hard to get a rape conviction to stick and every metric is in favour of them getting off.

Sef and if theres a not guilty verdict should their be outrage at the girl wasting tax payers money?

You don't really get the criminal justice system, do you?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 01:14:03 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 27, 2018, 12:47:08 PM
Deliberations have started . . . can any of the legal eagles give an estimate if this will finish today or most likely tomorrow?
Frank Greaney was on Newstalk this morning talking about the possibility of the trial going into a 10th week!

Very difficult job for the jury. I've my own views but I'll not be judging the jury no matter what the outcome.

My head has me leaning toward a hung jury with no retrial given the publicity this case has attracted
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 27, 2018, 01:17:16 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 12:55:19 PM
BCB, what does this mean? A majority verdict is not going to be enough?

Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
7m7 minutes ago
More
Before asking them to retire to their jury room, Judge Smyth tells the jurors she can only accept a unanimous verdict - so all eleven must be in agreement.


Absolutely no chance they go down here IMO.

Again, that's not to say they are 'not guilty'.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 01:20:57 PM
Given the week we're in, if this does drag out towards the weekend, what happens? Doesn't the court term officially end tomorrow?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 27, 2018, 01:27:19 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 01:20:57 PM
Given the week we're in, if this does drag out towards the weekend, what happens? Doesn't the court term officially end tomorrow?
Thursday. In which case they don't come back to next Wednesday!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 27, 2018, 01:32:52 PM
If Jackson is innocent, will he play for Ulster again?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Walter Cronc on March 27, 2018, 01:36:33 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 27, 2018, 01:32:52 PM
If Jackson is innocent, will he play for Ulster again?

I'd say at the start of the season his Ulster career was over. However given that Ulster are shocking and not exactly in a position to turn players down he might be back. I had heard rumours that Henderson wasnt resigning unless he was given assurances that he'd be welcomed back (if innocent).

Tricky one for Ulster to be fair. He might want to get away to France or somewhere mind you.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 01:37:27 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 27, 2018, 01:32:52 PM
If Jackson is innocent, will he play for Ulster again?

Not guilty in a criminal court != innocent.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 27, 2018, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: Walter Cronc on March 27, 2018, 01:36:33 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 27, 2018, 01:32:52 PM
If Jackson is innocent, will he play for Ulster again?

I'd say at the start of the season his Ulster career was over. However given that Ulster are shocking and not exactly in a position to turn players down he might be back. I had heard rumours that Henderson wasnt resigning unless he was given assurances that he'd be welcomed back (if innocent).

Tricky one for Ulster to be fair. He want want to get away to France or somewhere mind you.

Was informed very reliably before the trial neither would play for Ulster again.

If innocent/acquitted, legally, it's a minefield for Ulster - lest we forget Olding and Jackson are damn good players to boot. As mentioned Ulster are a mess....and the old, everyone deserves second chances.....

In my mind they'll not go down. Which means, they are innocent - the verdict is coming at a good time, the season is over. I can see them being reintegrated.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 01:45:33 PM
Quote from: Walter Cronc on March 27, 2018, 01:36:33 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 27, 2018, 01:32:52 PM
If Jackson is innocent, will he play for Ulster again?

I'd say at the start of the season his Ulster career was over. However given that Ulster are shocking and not exactly in a position to turn players down he might be back. I had heard rumours that Henderson wasnt resigning unless he was given assurances that he'd be welcomed back (if innocent).

Tricky one for Ulster to be fair. He might want to get away to France or somewhere mind you.

I think if I were the marketing manager of Kingspan or Kukri I wouldn't want a top shagging spit roasting heavy drinker running around with my company's name across his chest.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 27, 2018, 01:49:57 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 01:37:27 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 27, 2018, 01:32:52 PM
If Jackson is innocent, will he play for Ulster again?

Not guilty in a criminal court != innocent.

Correct and right Syf.
And if found innocent they should be allowed to get on with their lives and not castigated at every turnaround
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 01:51:39 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 27, 2018, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: Walter Cronc on March 27, 2018, 01:36:33 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 27, 2018, 01:32:52 PM
If Jackson is innocent, will he play for Ulster again?

I'd say at the start of the season his Ulster career was over. However given that Ulster are shocking and not exactly in a position to turn players down he might be back. I had heard rumours that Henderson wasnt resigning unless he was given assurances that he'd be welcomed back (if innocent).

Tricky one for Ulster to be fair. He want want to get away to France or somewhere mind you.

Was informed very reliably before the trial neither would play for Ulster again.

If innocent/acquitted, legally, it's a minefield for Ulster - lest we forget Olding and Jackson are damn good players to boot. As mentioned Ulster are a mess....and the old, everyone deserves second chances.....

In my mind they'll not go down. Which means, they are innocent - the verdict is coming at a good time, the season is over. I can see them being reintegrated.

Neither were particularly exceptional players even at their best. The are not in the tier of players that the IRFU would even consider being worth the hassle of the deservedly bad press they would receive.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rois on March 27, 2018, 01:54:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 01:45:33 PM

I think if I were the marketing manager of Kingspan or Kukri I wouldn't want a top shagging spit roasting heavy drinker running around with my company's name across his chest.
Not to mention one of the hundreds (thousands?) of season ticket holders who bring their children to games. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 27, 2018, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: Rois on March 27, 2018, 01:54:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 01:45:33 PM

I think if I were the marketing manager of Kingspan or Kukri I wouldn't want a top shagging spit roasting heavy drinker running around with my company's name across his chest.
Not to mention one of the hundreds (thousands?) of season ticket holders who bring their children to games.

Sports fans are fickle though Rois.
A bit of success and a lot of your past is forgiven
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 27, 2018, 01:59:01 PM
Quote from: Rois on March 27, 2018, 01:54:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 01:45:33 PM

I think if I were the marketing manager of Kingspan or Kukri I wouldn't want a top shagging spit roasting heavy drinker running around with my company's name across his chest.
Not to mention one of the hundreds (thousands?) of season ticket holders who bring their children to games.

Would that matter though if innocent.  Ulster will want to keep a hold of one of their best players who technically has done nothing wrong.  I'm sure the majority of Ulster rugby fans will be behind Jackson too.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 27, 2018, 02:00:07 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 27, 2018, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: Rois on March 27, 2018, 01:54:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 01:45:33 PM

I think if I were the marketing manager of Kingspan or Kukri I wouldn't want a top shagging spit roasting heavy drinker running around with my company's name across his chest.
Not to mention one of the hundreds (thousands?) of season ticket holders who bring their children to games.

Sports fans are fickle though Rois.
A bit of success and a lot of your past is forgiven
Yeah there is no way Ulster Rugby would take a significant medium to long-term hit on taking them back. The top shagger v evangelical Christian make-up of the team would be problematic but I'm sure their lifestyle choices were well known to each other.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: NAG1 on March 27, 2018, 02:02:49 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 27, 2018, 02:00:07 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 27, 2018, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: Rois on March 27, 2018, 01:54:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 01:45:33 PM

I think if I were the marketing manager of Kingspan or Kukri I wouldn't want a top shagging spit roasting heavy drinker running around with my company's name across his chest.
Not to mention one of the hundreds (thousands?) of season ticket holders who bring their children to games.

Sports fans are fickle though Rois.
A bit of success and a lot of your past is forgiven
Yeah there is no way Ulster Rugby would take a significant medium to long-term hit on taking them back. The top shagger v evangelical Christian make-up of the team would be problematic but I'm sure their lifestyle choices were well known to each other.

Think this myth has kind of been dispelled., was led up by the SA connection which has waned.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 02:03:10 PM
Is a civil case a possibility?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 02:06:39 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 02:03:10 PM
Is a civil case a possibility?

That had crossed my mind as well. If they're found not guilty, not sure anyone would want to go through it again.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on March 27, 2018, 02:07:41 PM
I heard both players are gone regardless and PJ is gone to Exeter. Also heard that there will be a civil case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Walter Cronc on March 27, 2018, 02:08:23 PM
Quote from: NAG1 on March 27, 2018, 02:02:49 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 27, 2018, 02:00:07 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 27, 2018, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: Rois on March 27, 2018, 01:54:39 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 01:45:33 PM

I think if I were the marketing manager of Kingspan or Kukri I wouldn't want a top shagging spit roasting heavy drinker running around with my company's name across his chest.
Not to mention one of the hundreds (thousands?) of season ticket holders who bring their children to games.

Sports fans are fickle though Rois.
A bit of success and a lot of your past is forgiven
Yeah there is no way Ulster Rugby would take a significant medium to long-term hit on taking them back. The top shagger v evangelical Christian make-up of the team would be problematic but I'm sure their lifestyle choices were well known to each other.

Think this myth has kind of been dispelled., was led up by the SA connection which has waned.

Yeah think thats a bit of a myth. Only ones I know of are Trimble and I think Henderson.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 02:06:39 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 02:03:10 PM
Is a civil case a possibility?

That had crossed my mind as well. If they're found not guilty, not sure anyone would want to go through it again.

It is but lack of anonymity may dissuade it happening. Also there are financial risks of running a Litigation case
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Walter Cronc on March 27, 2018, 02:11:05 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 27, 2018, 02:07:41 PM
I heard both players are gone regardless and PJ is gone to Exeter. Also heard that there will be a civil case.

A real family club also in the Irish province type ethos. Would be interesting!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 27, 2018, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 27, 2018, 02:07:41 PM
I heard both players are gone regardless and PJ is gone to Exeter. Also heard that there will be a civil case.

Maybe not anymore, Exeter have signed Cuthbert since - he wouldn't be cheap.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: omagh_gael on March 27, 2018, 02:12:39 PM
On a wider note, if the girl didn't consent to a certain element of the sexual interaction, for example Olding joining in, yet felt powerless/'froze' due to the trauma of the situation and as a result didn't scream or shout out. How does the male/s in the situation understand that the initial consent has been withdrawn and therefore stop the sexual contact?

I'm in no way victim blaming here just making the observation that the (absolutely true) 'froze in fear' trauma of the victim may be extremely hard/impossible to interpret by the 'aggressor' in cases like this.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on March 27, 2018, 02:17:34 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 27, 2018, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 27, 2018, 02:07:41 PM
I heard both players are gone regardless and PJ is gone to Exeter. Also heard that there will be a civil case.

Maybe not anymore, Exeter have signed Cuthbert since - he wouldn't be cheap.

They see him as Steenson's replacement, Cuthbert is a decent signing but his form is woeful.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 27, 2018, 02:22:11 PM
This is all assuming they are innocent off course.

What is the usual length of jail time if found guilty?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 27, 2018, 02:28:26 PM
If people think the "Top Shagger" stuff doesn't also go on in Leinster and Munster, they'd be very naive. Probably Ireland's best player in the 6N was involved in a Munster 3some that was very high profile on social media. BOD was supposed to be quite the playboy before he settled down. Lots of stories about other players too. Money, youth, fame and some of them even have looks, "Top shaggers", one night stands and after-boasting must be absolutely prolific

(I'd say even the Connacht lads get the odd score  ;) )
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 27, 2018, 02:30:45 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 02:28:26 PM
If people think the "Top Shagger" stuff doesn't also go on in Leinster and Munster, they'd be very naive. Probably Ireland's best player in the 6N was involved in a Munster 3some that was very high profile on social media. BOD was supposed to be quite the playboy before he settled down. Lots of stories about other players too. Money, youth, fame and some of them even have looks, "Top shaggers", one night stands and after-boasting must be absolutely prolific

(I'd say even the Connacht lads get the odd score  ;) )

It goes on at any micro level lads, lets be honest. Some of the young lads in our team after we won a Championship not so long ago were transformed into minor celebs in the local area. Not saying it was anything like this case, but you can see how things get out of hand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2018, 02:31:49 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 27, 2018, 02:30:45 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 02:28:26 PM
If people think the "Top Shagger" stuff doesn't also go on in Leinster and Munster, they'd be very naive. Probably Ireland's best player in the 6N was involved in a Munster 3some that was very high profile on social media. BOD was supposed to be quite the playboy before he settled down. Lots of stories about other players too. Money, youth, fame and some of them even have looks, "Top shaggers", one night stands and after-boasting must be absolutely prolific

(I'd say even the Connacht lads get the odd score  ;) )

It goes on at any micro level lads, lets be honest. Some of the young lads in our team after we won a Championship not so long ago were transformed into minor celebs in the local area. Not saying it was anything like this case, but you can see how things get out of hand.

Even the Kilkenny club hurling team were hiring strippers for their team  :o
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 02:28:26 PM
If people think the "Top Shagger" stuff doesn't also go on in Leinster and Munster, they'd be very naive. Probably Ireland's best player in the 6N was involved in a Munster 3some that was very high profile on social media. BOD was supposed to be quite the playboy before he settled down. Lots of stories about other players too. Money, youth, fame and some of them even have looks, "Top shaggers", one night stands and after-boasting must be absolutely prolific

(I'd say even the Connacht lads get the odd score  ;) )

Stockdale was hardly involved in a 'Munster threesome'.

By the way, there's a big difference between a threesome and a gang rape..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2018, 02:34:22 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 02:28:26 PM
If people think the "Top Shagger" stuff doesn't also go on in Leinster and Munster, they'd be very naive. Probably Ireland's best player in the 6N was involved in a Munster 3some that was very high profile on social media. BOD was supposed to be quite the playboy before he settled down. Lots of stories about other players too. Money, youth, fame and some of them even have looks, "Top shaggers", one night stands and after-boasting must be absolutely prolific

(I'd say even the Connacht lads get the odd score  ;) )

Stockdale was hardly involved in a 'Munster threesome'.

By the way, there's a big difference between a threesome and a gang rape..

Thats for the jury to decide i think
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 27, 2018, 02:35:56 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 27, 2018, 02:17:34 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 27, 2018, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 27, 2018, 02:07:41 PM
I heard both players are gone regardless and PJ is gone to Exeter. Also heard that there will be a civil case.

Maybe not anymore, Exeter have signed Cuthbert since - he wouldn't be cheap.

They see him as Steenson's replacement, Cuthbert is a decent signing but his form is woeful.

Steenson back 'home' as a replacement, would be interesting.

Cuthbert has been woeful since the previous Lions tour, but still shows the occasional glimpse of genius that gets him by. There's still a hell of a player there though at 27
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 02:36:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2018, 02:34:22 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 02:28:26 PM
If people think the "Top Shagger" stuff doesn't also go on in Leinster and Munster, they'd be very naive. Probably Ireland's best player in the 6N was involved in a Munster 3some that was very high profile on social media. BOD was supposed to be quite the playboy before he settled down. Lots of stories about other players too. Money, youth, fame and some of them even have looks, "Top shaggers", one night stands and after-boasting must be absolutely prolific

(I'd say even the Connacht lads get the odd score  ;) )

Stockdale was hardly involved in a 'Munster threesome'.

By the way, there's a big difference between a threesome and a gang rape..

Thats for the jury to decide i think

No it isn't. There is a difference between a rape and a consensual threesome. What the jury has to decide is in which category this particular incident lies.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 27, 2018, 02:36:47 PM
Going by the twitter accounts of the judge's comments (which is quite unrealiable!), my take is that the judge seems to be trying to persuade the jury that everything hinges on one piece of the puzzle - the complainant's inconsistent story to the doctor who examined her at the trial:

- If the jury think she deliberately lied to the doctor, then they should find them Not Guilty

- If the jury think the inconsistencies were down to trauma/confusion, then find them Guilty

Though, as I say twitter summaries are definitely unreliable as they leave loads out.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2018, 02:44:13 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 02:36:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2018, 02:34:22 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 02:28:26 PM
If people think the "Top Shagger" stuff doesn't also go on in Leinster and Munster, they'd be very naive. Probably Ireland's best player in the 6N was involved in a Munster 3some that was very high profile on social media. BOD was supposed to be quite the playboy before he settled down. Lots of stories about other players too. Money, youth, fame and some of them even have looks, "Top shaggers", one night stands and after-boasting must be absolutely prolific

(I'd say even the Connacht lads get the odd score  ;) )

Stockdale was hardly involved in a 'Munster threesome'.

By the way, there's a big difference between a threesome and a gang rape..

Thats for the jury to decide i think

No it isn't. There is a difference between a rape and a consensual threesome. What the jury has to decide is in which category this particular incident lies.

Of course,  the jury will decide on whether there will be guilty verdict or a not guilty verdict
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 02:45:43 PM
I would venture that very few people think the complainant lied to Dr. Lavery.

I was surprised to read that Judge Smyth directed the jury that it is up to them "to decide if the woman had drunk so much that she did not the ability to consent".

I had assumed that this point was irrelevant to the charges, especially given the line being pushed by the defence that the complainant was "intoxicated".

Very curious.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2018, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 02:45:43 PM
I would venture that very few people think the complainant lied to Dr. Lavery.

I was surprised to read that Judge Smyth directed the jury that it is up to them "to decide if the woman had drunk so much that she did not the ability to consent".

I had assumed that this point was irrelevant to the charges, especially given the line being pushed by the defence that the complainant was "intoxicated".

Very curious.

How do the jury determine what amount of drink makes one person intoxicated? (give them the same amount and do a soberity test?)

and how would you know if thats all they drank.. Olding says he drank x amount but was he counting? Flip after 5 i struggle to count the amout taken unless its on my card and I'm only buying myself
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 27, 2018, 03:33:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 02:45:43 PM
I would venture that very few people think the complainant lied to Dr. Lavery.

I was surprised to read that Judge Smyth directed the jury that it is up to them "to decide if the woman had drunk so much that she did not the ability to consent".

I had assumed that this point was irrelevant to the charges, especially given the line being pushed by the defence that the complainant was "intoxicated".

Very curious.

I can answer this one. It's actually very well dealt with in the Ched Evans case. Drunken consent is still consent but a point can come when a person is too drunk to legally consent. If the jury think the girl was at that point then the issue of whether or not she consented is irrelevant and the only issue is did the defendants reasonably believe she was consenting. If the defendants knew she was at the stage of being unable to legally consent it's impossible their belief in her consent was reasonable (which is what lead to Evans conviction first time round but not his co-accused.

Whether a person is too drunk to consent is a matter of fact
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 27, 2018, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 02:45:43 PM
I would venture that very few people think the complainant lied to Dr. Lavery.
I think she lied about Olding having vaginal sex with her. He was never behind her, and in her actual court testimony there was never any hint of it. Confusion as to whether it was one or two people who had vaginal sex with her just doesn't stack up, in my opinion. So I think she exaggerated to the doctor. That's just my opinion, based on incomplete twitter accounts, and fully accept that other people can have other opinions.

The surprise to me is that the judge has directed that such a lie to a doctor, not a policeman and before a police investigation had even started, matters so much as to render the whole case closed in the defendants' favour.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 27, 2018, 03:55:26 PM
Jury are returning

Edit -

@FrankGreaney

Judge Smyth has returned to the courtroom. She tells the court she has been handed a list of three questions from the jurors. She is now sending them home for the night and asks them to return to court at 10am tomorrow to resume their deliberations.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 27, 2018, 03:59:13 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2018, 03:55:26 PM
Jury are returning

Edit -

@FrankGreaney

Judge Smyth has returned to the courtroom. She tells the court she has been handed a list of three questions from the jurors. She is now sending them home for the night and asks them to return to court at 10am tomorrow to resume their deliberations.

Do the defence and prosecution teams get to see those 3 questions I wonder?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 27, 2018, 04:01:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 03:59:13 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2018, 03:55:26 PM
Jury are returning

Edit -

@FrankGreaney

Judge Smyth has returned to the courtroom. She tells the court she has been handed a list of three questions from the jurors. She is now sending them home for the night and asks them to return to court at 10am tomorrow to resume their deliberations.

Do the defence and prosecution teams get to see those 3 questions I wonder?

I wouldn't have thought so . . .
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 04:04:00 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 27, 2018, 04:01:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 03:59:13 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2018, 03:55:26 PM
Jury are returning

Edit -

@FrankGreaney

Judge Smyth has returned to the courtroom. She tells the court she has been handed a list of three questions from the jurors. She is now sending them home for the night and asks them to return to court at 10am tomorrow to resume their deliberations.

Do the defence and prosecution teams get to see those 3 questions I wonder?

I wouldn't have thought so . . .

Not at this stage but I would presume the judge will answer them in due course in open court, if she can. They may be prejudicial so she is probably going to reflect overnight.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: shezam on March 27, 2018, 04:07:42 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2018, 03:55:26 PM
Jury are returning

Edit -

@FrankGreaney

Judge Smyth has returned to the courtroom. She tells the court she has been handed a list of three questions from the jurors. She is now sending them home for the night and asks them to return to court at 10am tomorrow to resume their deliberations.

The jury came back to court to ask if

1) they can see/hear Rory Harrison's witness statement from June 30.

2) They want to know where is the evidence the woman accessed Uber on her phone.

Judge will answer in the morning. Jury is being sent home and will return tomorrow.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 27, 2018, 04:08:26 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 04:04:00 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 27, 2018, 04:01:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 03:59:13 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2018, 03:55:26 PM
Jury are returning

Edit -

@FrankGreaney

Judge Smyth has returned to the courtroom. She tells the court she has been handed a list of three questions from the jurors. She is now sending them home for the night and asks them to return to court at 10am tomorrow to resume their deliberations.

Do the defence and prosecution teams get to see those 3 questions I wonder?

I wouldn't have thought so . . .

Not at this stage but I would presume the judge will answer them in due course in open court, if she can. They may be prejudicial so she is probably going to reflect overnight.

Could one of them be would she accept a majority verdict?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 27, 2018, 04:09:06 PM
Can anyone come up with a theory as to why whether she accessed Uber on her phone is of any importance?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 04:14:11 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 02:45:43 PM
I would venture that very few people think the complainant lied to Dr. Lavery.
I think she lied about Olding having vaginal sex with her. He was never behind her, and in her actual court testimony there was never any hint of it.

Ffs, the reason it wasn't brought up in court was because he's not facing that charge. You've hardly stumbled across the smoking you appear to think you have.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 04:15:27 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 04:09:06 PM
Can anyone come up with a theory as to why whether she accessed Uber on her phone is of any importance?

Given that they are looking for Harrison's statement I'd hazard a guess that they have issues about the time line and his/her version of events for what happened after she left.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 27, 2018, 04:16:52 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 04:09:06 PM
Can anyone come up with a theory as to why whether she accessed Uber on her phone is of any importance?

Maybe it's been missed in our twitter updates during her evidence - something along the lines she had to go back to her room, to get her phone, to order a taxi? Some sort of crossover with what Harrison has said about the taxi / taxi man's evidence?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2018, 04:23:30 PM
Deciding over the 4 defendants this will take longer than normal to come to a verdict..are the jury not privy to the evidence that has been provided during the case, or are they soley dependant on what they have heared and summed up by the lawyers and judge?

Jesus I'd have forgot half the stuff mentioned at the start of teh case
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: omagh_gael on March 27, 2018, 04:25:57 PM
Could it have something to do with gaining an insight into her level of intoxication? If she was so far out of it with intoxication (therefore not be in a position to give consent) could she use her phone in a competent enough fashion to order an Uber?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 04:27:51 PM
David and/or bcb1...is the jury bound to consider the cases in any particular order e.g Jackson is facing the most serious charges so they look at this first, or can they start anywhere, e.g looking at Harrison's evidence?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2018, 04:31:22 PM
Quote from: omagh_gael on March 27, 2018, 04:25:57 PM
Could it have something to do with gaining an insight into her level of intoxication? If she was so far out of it with intoxication (therefore not be in a position to give consent) could she use her phone in a competent enough fashion to order an Uber?

She ordered the taxi at 4 in the morning or so, I'd say after all that happened she'd have well sobered up after that.. she only had a glass of wine and three doubles over 8 hours or more
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 27, 2018, 04:33:01 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 04:27:51 PM
David and/or bcb1...is the jury bound to consider the cases in any particular order e.g Jackson is facing the most serious charges so they look at this first, or can they start anywhere, e.g looking at Harrison's evidence?

They can start anywhere and can return unanimous verdicts on any defendant separately to the other. Ie they can return a verdict on one and then go on deliberating about the others although that is not to be encouraged. Also defence and prosecution will be fully aware of the questions. The judge will discuss with them how they should be answered
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 04:36:04 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2018, 04:31:22 PM
Quote from: omagh_gael on March 27, 2018, 04:25:57 PM
Could it have something to do with gaining an insight into her level of intoxication? If she was so far out of it with intoxication (therefore not be in a position to give consent) could she use her phone in a competent enough fashion to order an Uber?

She ordered the taxi at 4 in the morning or so, I'd say after all that happened she'd have well sobered up after that.. she only had a glass of wine and three doubles over 8 hours or more

To be exact, she said she had a large glass and a half of red wine at her friend's house and then three double vodkas.  It's hard for us to work out if that's enough to make her drunk, maybe she can hold her drink and was fine or maybe a couple of drinks and she's away with the band and she was hammered.  I think that's why they've looked at the CCTV from Ollie's a few times.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:38:56 PM
A large glass and half of wine and three double vodkas over the course of a night out would be pretty tame by student standards.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 05:47:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:38:56 PM
A large glass and half of wine and three double vodkas over the course of a night out would be pretty tame by student standards.

Maybe.  It was in my day.  Just saying we (on the board) can't second guess her tolerance to alcohol.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 05:48:48 PM
Jury have asked the judge 3 questions. These will be dealt with when the trial resumes in the morning.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 05:47:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:38:56 PM
A large glass and half of wine and three double vodkas over the course of a night out would be pretty tame by student standards.

Maybe.  It was in my day.  Just saying we (on the board) can't second guess her tolerance to alcohol.

Absolutely not, just making the observation. If I was on a jury and heard that that was the total consumption over a night out consisting of pre-drinks, a nightclub and a house party afterwards I'd be raising my eyebrows.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 27, 2018, 05:57:08 PM
Thank God it is nearly over.  A few songs came into mind.

The lads think they are God's gift to women

 https://youtu.be/wyx6JDQCslE

The complainant was unforgettable

https://youtu.be/CTFtOOh47oo

It is not clear who removed her top

 https://youtu.be/b1_B-IKEufg
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 05:47:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:38:56 PM
A large glass and half of wine and three double vodkas over the course of a night out would be pretty tame by student standards.

Maybe.  It was in my day.  Just saying we (on the board) can't second guess her tolerance to alcohol.

Absolutely not, just making the observation. If I was on a jury and heard that that was the total consumption over a night out consisting of pre-drinks, a nightclub and a house party afterwards I'd be raising my eyebrows.

Most of the women I knew in college didn't drink heavily. A couple glasses of wine and an alchopop or two and they were done. Same as most lads, they knew their limits. For all this talk of students binge drinking the fact is the vast majority don't drink themselves into a coma and at least stop before they get to a point where they can't find their way home.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 27, 2018, 06:12:10 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 04:14:11 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 27, 2018, 02:45:43 PM
I would venture that very few people think the complainant lied to Dr. Lavery.
I think she lied about Olding having vaginal sex with her. He was never behind her, and in her actual court testimony there was never any hint of it.

Ffs, the reason it wasn't brought up in court was because he's not facing that charge. You've hardly stumbled across the smoking you appear to think you have.
Not sure what's gotten your goat up gallsman???

I didnt say I'd stumbled across a smoking gun or anything of the likes!!

Maybe you should read what the judge said before jumping down my throat.

The judge said that if the complainant lied to the doctor, then the lads should walk free. The lie or mistake was that she said to the doctor that she had been vaginally raped by two people, when in actual fact (and agreed by all parties now) Olding did not have vaginal sex with her.

So there's nothing wrong with me speculating that it will be crucial for the jury to decide if that was a lie or a mistake (perhaps caused by trauma)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 06:41:58 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 06:12:10 PM
The judge said that if the complainant lied to the doctor, then the lads should walk free. The lie or mistake was that she said to the doctor that she had been vaginally raped by two people, when in actual fact (and agreed by all parties now) Olding did not have vaginal sex with her.

That's not what the judge said at all ffs. She said not to rely on it unless there was other evidence, which is up to them to decide.

Ffs, the shite people come out with on here, "the judge said the lads should walk free". Utter horseshit.

Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 05:47:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:38:56 PM
A large glass and half of wine and three double vodkas over the course of a night out would be pretty tame by student standards.

Maybe.  It was in my day.  Just saying we (on the board) can't second guess her tolerance to alcohol.

Absolutely not, just making the observation. If I was on a jury and heard that that was the total consumption over a night out consisting of pre-drinks, a nightclub and a house party afterwards I'd be raising my eyebrows.

Most of the women I knew in college didn't drink heavily. A couple glasses of wine and an alchopop or two and they were done.

You evidently haven't had much social interaction with women.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 07:05:41 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 06:41:58 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 06:12:10 PM
The judge said that if the complainant lied to the doctor, then the lads should walk free. The lie or mistake was that she said to the doctor that she had been vaginally raped by two people, when in actual fact (and agreed by all parties now) Olding did not have vaginal sex with her.

That's not what the judge said at all ffs. She said not to rely on it unless there was other evidence, which is up to them to decide.

Ffs, the shite people come out with on here, "the judge said the lads should walk free". Utter horseshit.

Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 05:47:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:38:56 PM
A large glass and half of wine and three double vodkas over the course of a night out would be pretty tame by student standards.

Maybe.  It was in my day.  Just saying we (on the board) can't second guess her tolerance to alcohol.

Absolutely not, just making the observation. If I was on a jury and heard that that was the total consumption over a night out consisting of pre-drinks, a nightclub and a house party afterwards I'd be raising my eyebrows.

Most of the women I knew in college didn't drink heavily. A couple glasses of wine and an alchopop or two and they were done.

You evidently haven't had much social interaction with women.

Or more likely you're just as guilty of stereotyping as everyone else. Yikes.

A bunch of you here seem fascinated with what young people get up to without really having much of a clue about what it's really like.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 07:11:43 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2018, 05:48:48 PM
Jury have asked the judge 3 questions. These will be dealt with when the trial resumes in the morning.

One is the query over Uber access on the complainant's phone.

One is Harrison's witness statement from 30 June.

The third??..or are there two questions in one of the above??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: bennydorano on March 27, 2018, 07:30:13 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 07:05:41 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 06:41:58 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 06:12:10 PM
The judge said that if the complainant lied to the doctor, then the lads should walk free. The lie or mistake was that she said to the doctor that she had been vaginally raped by two people, when in actual fact (and agreed by all parties now) Olding did not have vaginal sex with her.

That's not what the judge said at all ffs. She said not to rely on it unless there was other evidence, which is up to them to decide.

Ffs, the shite people come out with on here, "the judge said the lads should walk free". Utter horseshit.

Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 05:47:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:38:56 PM
A large glass and half of wine and three double vodkas over the course of a night out would be pretty tame by student standards.

Maybe.  It was in my day.  Just saying we (on the board) can't second guess her tolerance to alcohol.

Absolutely not, just making the observation. If I was on a jury and heard that that was the total consumption over a night out consisting of pre-drinks, a nightclub and a house party afterwards I'd be raising my eyebrows.

Most of the women I knew in college didn't drink heavily. A couple glasses of wine and an alchopop or two and they were done.

You evidently haven't had much social interaction with women.

Or more likely you're just as guilty of stereotyping as everyone else. Yikes.

A bunch of you here seem fascinated with what young people get up to without really having much of a clue about what it's really like.
Gold
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Therealdonald on March 27, 2018, 07:41:17 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 05:47:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:38:56 PM
A large glass and half of wine and three double vodkas over the course of a night out would be pretty tame by student standards.

Maybe.  It was in my day.  Just saying we (on the board) can't second guess her tolerance to alcohol.

Absolutely not, just making the observation. If I was on a jury and heard that that was the total consumption over a night out consisting of pre-drinks, a nightclub and a house party afterwards I'd be raising my eyebrows.

Most of the women I knew in college didn't drink heavily. A couple glasses of wine and an alchopop or two and they were done. Same as most lads, they knew their limits. For all this talk of students binge drinking the fact is the vast majority don't drink themselves into a coma and at least stop before they get to a point where they can't find their way home.

Syferus I'm not sure what the alcohol tolerance of the women in the Chess club were, but I can only discuss my time in Belfast. Boys and girls both binge drank. On any night the women had as much drink as the men. Where it differed was the boys headed to for the cure the next morning whilst the women headed to class.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 08:28:56 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 27, 2018, 07:30:13 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 07:05:41 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 06:41:58 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2018, 06:12:10 PM
The judge said that if the complainant lied to the doctor, then the lads should walk free. The lie or mistake was that she said to the doctor that she had been vaginally raped by two people, when in actual fact (and agreed by all parties now) Olding did not have vaginal sex with her.

That's not what the judge said at all ffs. She said not to rely on it unless there was other evidence, which is up to them to decide.

Ffs, the shite people come out with on here, "the judge said the lads should walk free". Utter horseshit.

Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 05:47:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:38:56 PM
A large glass and half of wine and three double vodkas over the course of a night out would be pretty tame by student standards.

Maybe.  It was in my day.  Just saying we (on the board) can't second guess her tolerance to alcohol.

Absolutely not, just making the observation. If I was on a jury and heard that that was the total consumption over a night out consisting of pre-drinks, a nightclub and a house party afterwards I'd be raising my eyebrows.

Most of the women I knew in college didn't drink heavily. A couple glasses of wine and an alchopop or two and they were done.

You evidently haven't had much social interaction with women.

Or more likely you're just as guilty of stereotyping as everyone else. Yikes.

A bunch of you here seem fascinated with what young people get up to without really having much of a clue about what it's really like.
Gold

If only you weren't as fast to run away from the Russia thread.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 08:31:32 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 07:05:41 PM
Or more likely you're just as guilty of stereotyping as everyone else. Yikes.

A bunch of you here seem fascinated with what young people get up to without really having much of a clue about what it's really like.

You're the one who clearly doesn't have the clue here. Did you not go to college in the US? If so, given that I'm from Belfast and went to college in Ireland, I'd wager I have considerably more insight into the drinking habits of these particular young people than you.

If you're trying to suggest that, by extension, a couple of glasses of wine and an alcopop or two would be the average consumption of a young lady on a night out, you're not just being disingenuous, you're flat out lying.

I know, I'm as shocked as everyone else.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2018, 08:34:24 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 08:31:32 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 07:05:41 PM
Or more likely you're just as guilty of stereotyping as everyone else. Yikes.

A bunch of you here seem fascinated with what young people get up to without really having much of a clue about what it's really like.

You're the one who clearly doesn't have the clue here. Did you not go to college in the US? If so, given that I'm from Belfast and went to college in Ireland, I'd wager I have considerably more insight into the drinking habits of these particular young people than you.

If you're trying to suggest that, by extension, a couple of glasses of wine and an alcopop or two would be the average consumption of a young lady on a night out, you're not just being disingenuous, you're flat out lying.

I know, I'm as shocked as everyone else.

The kids nowadays would have at the very least what she had, before they left the house!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 08:40:17 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 08:31:32 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 07:05:41 PM
Or more likely you're just as guilty of stereotyping as everyone else. Yikes.

A bunch of you here seem fascinated with what young people get up to without really having much of a clue about what it's really like.

You're the one who clearly doesn't have the clue here. Did you not go to college in the US? If so, given that I'm from Belfast and went to college in Ireland, I'd wager I have considerably more insight into the drinking habits of these particular young people than you.

If you're trying to suggest that, by extension, a couple of glasses of wine and an alcopop or two would be the average consumption of a young lady on a night out, you're not just being disingenuous, you're flat out lying.

I know, I'm as shocked as everyone else.

Where the actual fûck did you get the bright idea I went to college in the US?

If you think the majority of women or even lads constantly drink themselves into the ground in college you're playing into as many stereotypes as anyone else here. Every night out isn't a competition to drink the most either, so it depends on a lot of different circumstances. What you seem to have in your head is the fresher dropouts who go out nearly nightly for the first six months and no one hears from again. Even considering them students is a push, but they still would be in the minority. To actually successfully complete a four year degree you happen to require some level of self control.

Depending on the height and build of a woman, two full glasses of wine and a few double vodkas could have them fairly fucked in the first place. Likewise I know women who would take that amount of alcohol in their strides. It depends entirely on the person, but women physically cannot tolerate as much as lads on average simply because of basic biology.

If all or most the women and lads you know drink themselves into the ground constantly I would say you should be reassessing who you keep company with rather than giving advice here.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Aughafad on March 27, 2018, 08:44:18 PM
A lot of people on here are belaying their ages if they think the majority of students arrn't Binge drinking before going out for the night.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 08:50:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 08:40:17 PM
If all or most the women and lads you know drink themselves into the ground constantly I would say you should be reassessing who you keep company with rather than giving advice here.

Incredible stuff. This is the best laugh you've given me yet.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 08:52:18 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 08:50:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 08:40:17 PM
If all or most the women and lads you know drink themselves into the ground constantly I would say you should be reassessing who you keep company with rather than giving advice here.

Incredible stuff. This is the best laugh you've given me yet.

The truth hurts, I guess.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2018, 08:59:09 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 08:52:18 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 08:50:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 08:40:17 PM
If all or most the women and lads you know drink themselves into the ground constantly I would say you should be reassessing who you keep company with rather than giving advice here.

Incredible stuff. This is the best laugh you've given me yet.

The truth hurts, I guess.

No harm to you Syferus but you come across like a boring Cnut
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Farrandeelin on March 27, 2018, 09:05:42 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 27, 2018, 07:41:17 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 05:47:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:38:56 PM
A large glass and half of wine and three double vodkas over the course of a night out would be pretty tame by student standards.

Maybe.  It was in my day.  Just saying we (on the board) can't second guess her tolerance to alcohol.

Absolutely not, just making the observation. If I was on a jury and heard that that was the total consumption over a night out consisting of pre-drinks, a nightclub and a house party afterwards I'd be raising my eyebrows.

Most of the women I knew in college didn't drink heavily. A couple glasses of wine and an alchopop or two and they were done. Same as most lads, they knew their limits. For all this talk of students binge drinking the fact is the vast majority don't drink themselves into a coma and at least stop before they get to a point where they can't find their way home.

Syferus I'm not sure what the alcohol tolerance of the women in the Chess club were, but I can only discuss my time in Belfast. Boys and girls both binge drank. On any night the women had as much drink as the men. Where it differed was the boys headed to for the cure the next morning whilst the women headed to class.
Bang on.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Therealdonald on March 27, 2018, 09:06:38 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2018, 08:59:09 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 08:52:18 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 08:50:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 08:40:17 PM
If all or most the women and lads you know drink themselves into the ground constantly I would say you should be reassessing who you keep company with rather than giving advice here.

Incredible stuff. This is the best laugh you've given me yet.

The truth hurts, I guess.

No harm to you Syferus but you come across like a boring Cnut

What he said ^^^^^^^^
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 09:12:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 08:52:18 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 08:50:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 08:40:17 PM
If all or most the women and lads you know drink themselves into the ground constantly I would say you should be reassessing who you keep company with rather than giving advice here.

Incredible stuff. This is the best laugh you've given me yet.

The truth hurts, I guess.

I imagine you're well familiar with the true pain of being completely and utterly alone alright.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: An Watcher on March 27, 2018, 09:13:41 PM
Jesus boozing sessions in Belfast were crazy.  Drank til I got to oblivion and then topped up with some more just in case.  Women were just as bad.  Couldn't drink the half of it now!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 09:14:30 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 09:12:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 08:52:18 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 08:50:51 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 08:40:17 PM
If all or most the women and lads you know drink themselves into the ground constantly I would say you should be reassessing who you keep company with rather than giving advice here.

Incredible stuff. This is the best laugh you've given me yet.

The truth hurts, I guess.

I imagine you're well familiar with the true pain of being completely and utterly alone alright.

Someone is a little emotional. Take a breather.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 27, 2018, 10:05:34 PM
I thought you went to Auburn Syferus. If not I'm putting you on the SEC blacklist 😀
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 10:20:52 PM
I have a 19 year old son. He's a good lad but like most of his peers likes a drink. I've seen what his peers drink, including the females and trust me a glass and a half of wine and 3 vodkas doubles or singles would not even make a dent in their night. I know myself what I drank at that age. I can only imagine what the students are drinking. Syferus you are very far removed from reality in so many ways. I'm not saying I agree with it but the drink culture of 19-21 year olds is serious and they all do well.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 27, 2018, 10:27:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 10:20:52 PM
I have a 19 year old son. He's a good lad but like most of his peers likes a drink. I've seen what his peers drink, including the females and trust me a glass and a half of wine and 3 vodkas doubles or singles would not even make a dent in their night. I know myself what I drank at that age. I can only imagine what the students are drinking. Syferus you are very far removed from reality in so many ways. I'm not saying I agree with it but the drink culture of 19-21 year olds is serious and they all do well.
19?! You were early off the mark. Aye I remember a rake of cans before even starting drinking and teenagers these days are no different. Go out to any town centre in the country at 2am on a Saturday night and you'll see girls not able to stand.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 10:41:30 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 27, 2018, 10:27:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 10:20:52 PM
I have a 19 year old son. He's a good lad but like most of his peers likes a drink. I've seen what his peers drink, including the females and trust me a glass and a half of wine and 3 vodkas doubles or singles would not even make a dent in their night. I know myself what I drank at that age. I can only imagine what the students are drinking. Syferus you are very far removed from reality in so many ways. I'm not saying I agree with it but the drink culture of 19-21 year olds is serious and they all do well.
19?! You were early off the mark. Aye I remember a rake of cans before even starting drinking and teenagers these days are no different. Go out to any town centre in the country at 2am on a Saturday night and you'll see girls not able to stand.

Tell me about it T!!!!  Reliving life now though  ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 11:02:32 PM
Lies. All of you. All it ever was or will be was a few sociables and off home safely to bed under your own steam.

::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Therealdonald on March 27, 2018, 11:03:59 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 11:02:32 PM
Lies. All of you. All it ever was or will be was a few sociables and off home safely to bed under your own steam.

::) ::) ::)

The only time that happened was if you'd a big game the following weekend. Syferus has united us all in our pining for the past anyhow. No mean feat.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 27, 2018, 11:08:29 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 10:41:30 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 27, 2018, 10:27:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 27, 2018, 10:20:52 PM
I have a 19 year old son. He's a good lad but like most of his peers likes a drink. I've seen what his peers drink, including the females and trust me a glass and a half of wine and 3 vodkas doubles or singles would not even make a dent in their night. I know myself what I drank at that age. I can only imagine what the students are drinking. Syferus you are very far removed from reality in so many ways. I'm not saying I agree with it but the drink culture of 19-21 year olds is serious and they all do well.
19?! You were early off the mark. Aye I remember a rake of cans before even starting drinking and teenagers these days are no different. Go out to any town centre in the country at 2am on a Saturday night and you'll see girls not able to stand.

Tell me about it T!!!!  Reliving life now though  ;)
Aye doll in work got her two out of the way sharpish and said she's having her 20s in her 40s now! Always on holiday to somewhere with the husband now the kids can look after themselves.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 27, 2018, 11:09:38 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 27, 2018, 11:03:59 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 11:02:32 PM
Lies. All of you. All it ever was or will be was a few sociables and off home safely to bed under your own steam.

::) ::) ::)

The only time that happened was if you'd a big game the following weekend. Syferus has united us all in our pining for the past anyhow. No mean feat.

Following weekend?  ;D

That's were I got it wrong!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 27, 2018, 11:10:59 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 11:02:32 PM
Lies. All of you. All it ever was or will be was a few sociables and off home safely to bed under your own steam.

::) ::) ::)
Would you be a sherry or port man?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Solo_run on March 28, 2018, 12:11:05 AM
I've only ever got wasted a handful of times and a bit drunk alot of times at uni. These days I can't be bothered with drinking but it is grim out the drinking culture is getting out of hand. Don't see why people want to get drunk to the point where they collapse in some Street corner.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 07:21:03 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 05:47:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:38:56 PM
A large glass and half of wine and three double vodkas over the course of a night out would be pretty tame by student standards.

Maybe.  It was in my day.  Just saying we (on the board) can't second guess her tolerance to alcohol.

Absolutely not, just making the observation. If I was on a jury and heard that that was the total consumption over a night out consisting of pre-drinks, a nightclub and a house party afterwards I'd be raising my eyebrows.

Most of the women I knew in college didn't drink heavily. A couple glasses of wine and an alchopop or two and they were done. Same as most lads, they knew their limits. For all this talk of students binge drinking the fact is the vast majority don't drink themselves into a coma and at least stop before they get to a point where they can't find their way home.
You can't form an opinion from  what you saw while delivering pizzas to the students accommodation blocks
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 28, 2018, 07:31:17 AM
2 convictions and 2 acquittals would reflect the Board opinion given she took her top off/rape culture/the witness said she was smiling/they are all lying
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 28, 2018, 07:50:21 AM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 27, 2018, 07:41:17 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 27, 2018, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 27, 2018, 05:47:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2018, 05:38:56 PM
A large glass and half of wine and three double vodkas over the course of a night out would be pretty tame by student standards.

Maybe.  It was in my day.  Just saying we (on the board) can't second guess her tolerance to alcohol.

Absolutely not, just making the observation. If I was on a jury and heard that that was the total consumption over a night out consisting of pre-drinks, a nightclub and a house party afterwards I'd be raising my eyebrows.

Most of the women I knew in college didn't drink heavily. A couple glasses of wine and an alchopop or two and they were done. Same as most lads, they knew their limits. For all this talk of students binge drinking the fact is the vast majority don't drink themselves into a coma and at least stop before they get to a point where they can't find their way home.

Syferus I'm not sure what the alcohol tolerance of the women in the Chess club were, but I can only discuss my time in Belfast. Boys and girls both binge drank. On any night the women had as much drink as the men. Where it differed was the boys headed to for the cure the next morning whilst the women headed to class.

I wasn't in Belfast but I can vouch that in other parts of the country it was the same.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 11:05:37 AM
Jury back to deliberations...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 11:05:37 AM
Jury back to deliberations...

I'd imagine they'd get the rest of the day or most of it before they get the majority direction if needed.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 12:13:50 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 11:05:37 AM
Jury back to deliberations...

I'd imagine they'd get the rest of the day or most of it before they get the majority direction if needed.

Will there be a verdict today?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 11:05:37 AM
Jury back to deliberations...

I'd imagine they'd get the rest of the day or most of it before they get the majority direction if needed.

You wouldn't want to have to be released after 6/7 weeks to have to go back into your real job for 1 day. Need to get the Thursday out of it, then a nice wee break until back after easter.

They know.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 12:15:08 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 11:05:37 AM
Jury back to deliberations...

I'd imagine they'd get the rest of the day or most of it before they get the majority direction if needed.
I know we've had this before but is majority 10/1 rather than the logical 6/5?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 12:15:08 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 11:05:37 AM
Jury back to deliberations...

I'd imagine they'd get the rest of the day or most of it before they get the majority direction if needed.
I know we've had this before but is majority 10/1 rather than the logical 6/5?

Yes
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 28, 2018, 12:22:27 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 11:05:37 AM
Jury back to deliberations...

I'd imagine they'd get the rest of the day or most of it before they get the majority direction if needed.

You wouldn't want to have to be released after 6/7 weeks to have to go back into your real job for 1 day. Need to get the Thursday out of it, then a nice wee break until back after easter.

They know.

Are jury members told to keep it confidential that they have are on a particular case? You would imagine that fellow workers would have a fair idea if someone just took 2 months off work.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:24:30 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 28, 2018, 12:22:27 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 11:05:37 AM
Jury back to deliberations...

I'd imagine they'd get the rest of the day or most of it before they get the majority direction if needed.

You wouldn't want to have to be released after 6/7 weeks to have to go back into your real job for 1 day. Need to get the Thursday out of it, then a nice wee break until back after easter.

They know.

Are jury members told to keep it confidential that they have are on a particular case? You would imagine that fellow workers would have a fair idea if someone just took 2 months off work.

Impossible to keep it quiet, they'll be told not to publicise it / talk about it obviously but a judge cannot stop co workers spreading etc. Belfast is a small place, the jurors are known.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 12:27:09 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:24:30 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 28, 2018, 12:22:27 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 11:05:37 AM
Jury back to deliberations...

I'd imagine they'd get the rest of the day or most of it before they get the majority direction if needed.

You wouldn't want to have to be released after 6/7 weeks to have to go back into your real job for 1 day. Need to get the Thursday out of it, then a nice wee break until back after easter.

They know.

Are jury members told to keep it confidential that they have are on a particular case? You would imagine that fellow workers would have a fair idea if someone just took 2 months off work.

Impossible to keep it quiet, they'll be told not to publicise it / talk about it obviously but a judge cannot stop co workers spreading etc. Belfast is a small place, the jurors are known.

Who could afford to be out of work for 2 months? Madness amount of time, if you were self employed you'd be out of business
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Fr. Cyril McDuff on March 28, 2018, 12:29:47 PM
Verdicts in. Not guilty!
All defendants acquitted.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:32:57 PM
Quote from: Fr. Cyril McDuff on March 28, 2018, 12:29:47 PM
Verdicts in. Not guilty!
All defendants acquitted.

Not really surprising. Hard to get beyond reasonable doubt. Unanimous too.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:33:43 PM
Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
4m4 minutes ago
More
BREAKING Rory Harrison NOT GUILTY of perverting the course of justice and withholding information

0 replies 47 retweets 64 likes
Reply   Retweet 47   Like 64   Direct message

Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
4m4 minutes ago
More
BREAKING Blane McIlroy NOT GUILTY of exposure

0 replies 52 retweets 63 likes
Reply   Retweet 52   Like 63   Direct message

Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
5m5 minutes ago
More
BREAKING Stuart Olding NOT GUILTY of oral rape

0 replies 64 retweets 68 likes
Reply   Retweet 64   Like 68   Direct message

Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
5m5 minutes ago
More
BREAKING Paddy Jackson NOT GUILTY of sexual assault

1 reply 87 retweets 87 likes
Reply 1   Retweet 87   Like 87   Direct message

Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
5m5 minutes ago
More
BREAKING Paddy Jackson NOT GUILTY of rape

1 reply 107 retweets 114 likes
Reply 1   Retweet 107   Like 114   Direct message

Frank Greaney

Verified account

@FrankGreaney
6m6 minutes ago
More
BREAKING The jurors have just returned to the courtroom with unanimous verdicts on all counts. They've been deliberating for 3hrs 45mins. All 100 seats in the public gallery have been taken. The four defendants are back in the dock.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 12:33:57 PM
Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 12:34:15 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:32:57 PM
Quote from: Fr. Cyril McDuff on March 28, 2018, 12:29:47 PM
Verdicts in. Not guilty!
All defendants acquitted.

Not really surprising. Hard to get beyond reasonable doubt. Unanimous too.

The acquittal of McIlroy shows the IP was simply not believed.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:34:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 12:27:09 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:24:30 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 28, 2018, 12:22:27 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 11:05:37 AM
Jury back to deliberations...

I'd imagine they'd get the rest of the day or most of it before they get the majority direction if needed.

You wouldn't want to have to be released after 6/7 weeks to have to go back into your real job for 1 day. Need to get the Thursday out of it, then a nice wee break until back after easter.

They know.

Are jury members told to keep it confidential that they have are on a particular case? You would imagine that fellow workers would have a fair idea if someone just took 2 months off work.

Impossible to keep it quiet, they'll be told not to publicise it / talk about it obviously but a judge cannot stop co workers spreading etc. Belfast is a small place, the jurors are known.

Who could afford to be out of work for 2 months? Madness amount of time, if you were self employed you'd be out of business

You get your wages covered on it - although those self employed are not so lucky, it's a bit tricky. Fella was called to do duty with me and flat blank refused to do it as he would be out of pocket - as a result he'd find the defendant guilty because he would be in bad mood - got off it. Unbelievable.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 12:36:28 PM
The question now raises its head about whether she'll pursue a civil action. The fact that she wasn't believed here in such a conclusive way will make it much harder, even with the lower burden of proof.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 12:38:12 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 12:34:15 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:32:57 PM
Quote from: Fr. Cyril McDuff on March 28, 2018, 12:29:47 PM
Verdicts in. Not guilty!
All defendants acquitted.

Not really surprising. Hard to get beyond reasonable doubt. Unanimous too.

The acquittal of McIlroy shows the IP was simply not believed.

As I said before the defendants evidence was poor so it came down to "do we believe the girl?" The answer is clearly "No".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 12:38:33 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:34:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 12:27:09 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:24:30 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 28, 2018, 12:22:27 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 11:05:37 AM
Jury back to deliberations...

I'd imagine they'd get the rest of the day or most of it before they get the majority direction if needed.

You wouldn't want to have to be released after 6/7 weeks to have to go back into your real job for 1 day. Need to get the Thursday out of it, then a nice wee break until back after easter.

They know.

Are jury members told to keep it confidential that they have are on a particular case? You would imagine that fellow workers would have a fair idea if someone just took 2 months off work.

Impossible to keep it quiet, they'll be told not to publicise it / talk about it obviously but a judge cannot stop co workers spreading etc. Belfast is a small place, the jurors are known.

Who could afford to be out of work for 2 months? Madness amount of time, if you were self employed you'd be out of business

You get your wages covered on it - although those self employed are not so lucky, it's a bit tricky. Fella was called to do duty with me and flat blank refused to do it as he would be out of pocket - as a result he'd find the defendant guilty because he would be in bad mood - got off it. Unbelievable.

A relative (who will remain nameless to protect their stupidity) was once held in contempt when they asked could they simply pay the fine for non attendance as it would cost them less than missing 6 weeks of work.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:39:44 PM
Ollies will be pumping this weekend.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 12:41:38 PM
As expected. Only one person on here appeared to think beyond reasonable doubt had been achieved.

Surprised on Harrison though. The deleted messages, warning McIlroy not to bring his phone, the phone being reset etc all absolutely stink.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 28, 2018, 12:43:20 PM
A conclusive, very swift and unanimous verdict, this whole sorry case has turned out to be a waste of time. No winners here though the girl is the big loser in all of this.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 12:43:26 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.


We'll probably never know.  But as one of the defence barristers said (paraphrase) "If you're fairly sure they did it, that's not enough to convict"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 28, 2018, 12:43:50 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.

+1
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on March 28, 2018, 12:46:22 PM
Is such a high bar 'beyond reasonable doubt' and only people know the truth were in that room. Wouldn't want my daughter at a party with that crew all the same..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 12:47:50 PM
I'll be honest. I'm glad it's over!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:51:27 PM
Big pressure now on Ulster Rugby. Acquitted after about 4 hours. They are in a tough spot, if indeed, the word is true they are gone no matter what.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: tommysmith on March 28, 2018, 12:51:37 PM
Quote from: longballin on March 28, 2018, 12:46:22 PM
Is such a high bar 'beyond reasonable doubt' and only people know the truth were in that room. Wouldn't want my daughter at a party with that crew all the same..

I doubt they fully know themselves.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Under Lights on March 28, 2018, 12:52:43 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 12:41:38 PM
As expected. Only one person on here appeared to think beyond reasonable doubt had been achieved.

Surprised on Harrison though. The deleted messages, warning McIlroy not to bring his phone, the phone being reset etc all absolutely stink.

No crime, no prevent of justice?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Under Lights on March 28, 2018, 12:53:58 PM
All Four Aquitted- Grand Slam for the Top Shaggers
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 28, 2018, 12:54:57 PM
Wonder what the great pontificator first post will be....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on March 28, 2018, 12:55:51 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on March 28, 2018, 12:51:37 PM
Quote from: longballin on March 28, 2018, 12:46:22 PM
Is such a high bar 'beyond reasonable doubt' and only people know the truth were in that room. Wouldn't want my daughter at a party with that crew all the same..

I doubt they fully know themselves.

Fair comment!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Christmas Lights on March 28, 2018, 12:57:35 PM
In for the salty tears that will be flowing from the cheeks of Syferus
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 28, 2018, 12:58:24 PM
Anyone who thinks this is something to be celebrated is sick.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 28, 2018, 12:59:59 PM
Given the judges closing comments it was hard to see how they could be done.

Seemed unless everyone was 100% sure that everything the OP said about all of the men was true then all/some of them were innocent.

Given the inconsistencies with the OP and what she said to different parties how could anyone be 100% sure in convicting them
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: theskull1 on March 28, 2018, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 12:43:26 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.


We'll probably never know.  But as one of the defense barristers said (paraphrase) "If you're fairly sure they did it, that's not enough to convict"

This is the reason why I think embarrassment drove this incident to court. The evidence to convict was never there, but the prospect of saving face could (not saying I'm correct) certainly have driven it (although in hindsight the media circus has blown that away) . No one is walking away from this unscathed
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 01:07:12 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 28, 2018, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 12:43:26 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.


We'll probably never know.  But as one of the defense barristers said (paraphrase) "If you're fairly sure they did it, that's not enough to convict"

This is the reason why I think embarrassment drove this incident to court. The evidence to convict was never there, but the prospect of saving face could (not saying I'm correct) certainly have driven it (although in hindsight the media circus has blown that away) . No one is walking away from this unscathed

Surely that's the job of the PPS to determine??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Ambrose on March 28, 2018, 01:09:46 PM
I wonder if the lads will be having a party to celebrate? #SUFTUM
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 01:11:17 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 28, 2018, 12:58:24 PM
Anyone who thinks this is something to be celebrated is sick.

Who is celebrating? fcuk you're worse than syferus
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 28, 2018, 01:11:40 PM
There is a #Ibelieveher hashtag on Twitter already
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tyrdub on March 28, 2018, 01:12:07 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:51:27 PM
Big pressure now on Ulster Rugby. Acquitted after about 4 hours. They are in a tough spot, if indeed, the word is true they are gone no matter what.

how come? any proof?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 01:14:29 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

I don't think it's a stretch. the way the girl was filleted on the stand wouldn't inspire anyone to take a case. And the verdict (especially for women who believe her) is another body blow.

I said a few times what I think happened here, and I'm not surprised in the verdict.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 01:14:47 PM
Quote from: Tyrdub on March 28, 2018, 01:12:07 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:51:27 PM
Big pressure now on Ulster Rugby. Acquitted after about 4 hours. They are in a tough spot, if indeed, the word is true they are gone no matter what.

how come? any proof?

Any proof of what?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 01:15:23 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 01:17:16 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 01:07:12 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 28, 2018, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 12:43:26 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.


We'll probably never know.  But as one of the defense barristers said (paraphrase) "If you're fairly sure they did it, that's not enough to convict"

This is the reason why I think embarrassment drove this incident to court. The evidence to convict was never there, but the prospect of saving face could (not saying I'm correct) certainly have driven it (although in hindsight the media circus has blown that away) . No one is walking away from this unscathed

Surely that's the job of the PPS to determine??

Jackson's lawyers say his status as a famous sportsman drove the decision (by PPS I suppose) to prosecute
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rufus T Firefly on March 28, 2018, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.

Probably an obvious thing to say AZ but yet my sentiments exactly. I really hope that justice has been served.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 28, 2018, 01:17:32 PM
Cannot say I am in any way surprised at this verdict, from quite early on it appeared to me to be a clear case of 'buyers remorse' on behalf of the complainant. (With the usual rider of following this at a distance via press reports and social media.)

What it highlights most though is the mad system of justice we have that this freakshow took 8 weeks and god knows how much public and indeed private money to stage.  The justice sysyem is designed and perpetuated to be a massive big money tree by the people who run it all working hand and glove to keep the money river flowing....justice fairness rightness etc all come a very very long way behind.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 28, 2018, 01:17:33 PM
No winners among defendants or complainant!

9 weeks and hundreds of thousands of pounds later, no conviction, someone at PPS needs to be asked why?  Did it go ahead because of who the defendants are?  Would the same effort been afforded a complainant and defendants from another social background or location in N.Ireland?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 01:17:51 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 01:14:29 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

I don't think it's a stretch. the way the girl was filleted on the stand wouldn't inspire anyone to take a case. And the verdict (especially for women who believe her) is another body blow.

I said a few times what I think happened here, and I'm not surprised in the verdict.

Plenty of men believed her to, up to a point I believed in some of the stuff, but havent heard everything nor was i soley in one camp.. this was a sorry mess and I doubt very much it would stop someone coming forward that has been raped as there are a lot of other factors in rape that were missing here, that would convict someone else
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: square_ball on March 28, 2018, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 28, 2018, 01:11:40 PM
There is a #Ibelieveher hashtag on Twitter already

That has been there on twitter from the first day of the trial and then the subsequent #notmycaptain for Rory Best.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 28, 2018, 01:18:36 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 01:15:23 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??

Of course not. That already had to be clarified on this thread. People see what they want to see.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 01:15:23 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??

Yeah, was just about to ask what did the judge say in that regard??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 01:20:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 01:17:51 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 01:14:29 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

I don't think it's a stretch. the way the girl was filleted on the stand wouldn't inspire anyone to take a case. And the verdict (especially for women who believe her) is another body blow.

I said a few times what I think happened here, and I'm not surprised in the verdict.

Plenty of men believed her to, up to a point I believed in some of the stuff, but havent heard everything nor was i soley in one camp.. this was a sorry mess and I doubt very much it would stop someone coming forward that has been raped as there are a lot of other factors in rape that were missing here, that would convict someone else

I know they did. I'm talking specifically about how easy they might find it to report a rape, and how that might be influenced by the particular handling of this case.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tyrdub on March 28, 2018, 01:22:21 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 01:14:47 PM
Quote from: Tyrdub on March 28, 2018, 01:12:07 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:51:27 PM
Big pressure now on Ulster Rugby. Acquitted after about 4 hours. They are in a tough spot, if indeed, the word is true they are gone no matter what.

how come? any proof?

Any proof of what?

proof they are gone? or is this a rumour?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on March 28, 2018, 01:23:08 PM
Party at Ollies anyone?! After party at Paddys hes told me, we're all invited...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 01:25:50 PM
Quote from: Tyrdub on March 28, 2018, 01:22:21 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 01:14:47 PM
Quote from: Tyrdub on March 28, 2018, 01:12:07 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 12:51:27 PM
Big pressure now on Ulster Rugby. Acquitted after about 4 hours. They are in a tough spot, if indeed, the word is true they are gone no matter what.

how come? any proof?

Any proof of what?

proof they are gone? or is this a rumour?

Unofficial word from Ulster Rugby to sponsors prior to trial was to this effect.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 01:27:16 PM
Unanimous verdict after nine weeks of evidence. The jury were in no doubt who was lying.
The Prosecution Service should have a good review of the decision to prosecute.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on March 28, 2018, 01:23:08 PM
Party at Ollies anyone?! After party at Paddys hes told me, we're all invited...

In town with the better alf tomorrow, will have to keep an eye on her.. the top shaggers will be let loose

In all fairness, be interesting to see if this goes pubic with the IP, along the lines of a civil case....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 28, 2018, 01:31:31 PM
I think if Dara Florence didn't open the bedroom door we would never have heard another word about this
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: BennyCake on March 28, 2018, 01:31:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on March 28, 2018, 01:23:08 PM
Party at Ollies anyone?! After party at Paddys hes told me, we're all invited...

In town with the better alf tomorrow, will have to keep an eye on her.. the top shaggers will be let loose

In all fairness, be interesting to see if this goes pubic with the IP, along the lines of a civil case....

Freudian slip, eh? ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: thebigfella on March 28, 2018, 01:31:51 PM
Have avoided posting on here due to the usuals suspects making the discussion a joke. One point though and it's based on the sketchy reports of the cases presented - I would have expected a jury of 11 to deliberate each of the charges individually?

Can't remember whether there were 5/6 charges for all 4 defendants; but 5 would equate to debating 45 mins per charge or ~4min per juror. Doesn't seem like a lot considering the length of trial and evidence presented (which was reported on)?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: take_yer_points on March 28, 2018, 01:32:30 PM
Jackson's soliticor said Jackson's main priority is to now get back playing on the field for Ulster and Ireland.

Statement from IRFU and Ulster.. https://t.co/6XTknZ2Zk9
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:33:08 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 28, 2018, 01:18:36 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 01:15:23 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??

Of course not. That already had to be clarified on this thread. People see what they want to see.

It's absolutely true!! FFS, why would you say otherwise Seanie?:

This directly from Rosanna Cooney's twitter:
~~~~~~~~~~
Judge:
Whether or not there are inconsistencies in the account the woman gave to the Doctor in the Rowan clinic and the account she gave to the police is a matter for you. If you decide there are inconsistencies you must decide why that must be so.

Trauma is a reason that can explain inconsistencies. If you are satisfied that trauma is the reason then the inconsistencies might not be that important to you.

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the complainants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Without the complainant's evidence there was clearly no case against the defendants. Medical evidence was very much inconclusive.

So as I said before, the jury had to decide whether she lied or made a mistake (as a result of trauma) when making the initial false allegation against Olding. Therefore, the judge was effectively instructing the jury to acquit if they thought she lied to the doctor (given the lack of other evidence).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 01:35:13 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
"if the girl lied" FFS
Not one of the jury believed here.
She got herself painted into a corner and thought she could lie herself out of it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 01:36:52 PM
Did you read the criteria for rape that has been posted here numerous times by David?

The girl may not have consented, but the guys may have reasonably believed she did.

That is not the same as her lying.

I'm not surprised at the verdict. It was always he said/she said, and as I said at the time, the witness statement *had* to introduce an element of doubt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 01:37:11 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on March 28, 2018, 01:31:51 PM
Have avoided posting on here due to the usuals suspects making the discussion a joke. One point though and it's based on the sketchy reports of the cases presented - I would have expected a jury of 11 to deliberate each of the charges individually?

Can't remember whether there were 5/6 charges for all 4 defendants; but 5 would equate to debating 45 mins per charge or ~4min per juror. Doesn't seem like a lot considering the length of trial and evidence presented (which was reported on)?
Maybe after nine weeks the jury decided that they had wasted enough time on her lies
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 01:38:55 PM
Where is the clampit that said a quick result would result in a guilty verdict?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 01:40:57 PM
Could we have George Hook give his definitive opinion on the verdict?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 01:43:19 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 01:27:16 PM
Unanimous verdict after nine weeks of evidence. The jury were in no doubt who was lying.
The Prosecution Service should have a good review of the decision to prosecute.

At least some of the defendants were lying, and that's a fact.

Their accounts were riddled with contradictions of each others' testimony.

A not guilty verdict doesn't amount to saying the complainant was lying - it says nothing of the sort.





Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 01:44:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 01:38:55 PM
Where is the clampit that said a quick result would result in a guilty verdict?

He's had a nightmare in this thread
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 01:45:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 01:38:55 PM
Where is the clampit that said a quick result would result in a guilty verdict?

Here??...I posted this:

God only knows, as long as it takes.

Some say that if the jury comes back quickly it's likely to be a guilty verdict and the longer it takes the more likely it is to be not guilty, or maybe that just in films!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 01:45:55 PM
Will the jurors be allowed to give their reasoning, a lá American trials?

I wonder how long before the tabloids have their claws in.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 01:43:19 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 01:27:16 PM
Unanimous verdict after nine weeks of evidence. The jury were in no doubt who was lying.
The Prosecution Service should have a good review of the decision to prosecute.

At least some of the defendants were lying, and that's a fact.

Their accounts were riddled with contradictions of each others' testimony.

A not guilty verdict doesn't amount to saying the complainant was lying - it says nothing of the sort.

Give up. The jury has spoken
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 28, 2018, 01:47:50 PM
It's NI so presumably the IP could get in a few contractors to do a bit of kneecapping if she is unhappy with the verdict.
The whole thing was very sad. I felt sorry for Mrs and Mrs Jackson.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 01:49:09 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 01:45:55 PM
Will the jurors be allowed to give their reasoning, a lá American trials?

I wonder how long before the tabloids have their claws in.

No. The jury can only be polled in the case of a guilty verdict
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 01:49:32 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 28, 2018, 01:47:50 PM
It's NI so presumably the IP could get in a few contractors to do a bit of kneecapping if she is unhappy with the verdict.
The whole thing was very sad. I felt sorry for Mrs and Mrs Jackson.

I didnt realise we had the same sex marriage bill passed!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 01:49:46 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 01:49:09 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 01:45:55 PM
Will the jurors be allowed to give their reasoning, a lá American trials?

I wonder how long before the tabloids have their claws in.

No. The jury can only be polled in the case of a guilty verdict

So no behind the scenes revelations in the Irish News then?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 01:53:35 PM
Makes you wonder if the verdict would have been the same if the defendants didn't take the stand.  Judging by the outcome it probably would have as this  seems to have hinged on the credibility of the complainant and not the defendants.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 28, 2018, 01:56:14 PM
The sooner the whole system is changed to anonymity for defendants and complainants until a verdict is given the better!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 01:57:45 PM
Every woman in Ireland under the age of 25 seems to be believe her. Their Twitter outrage is hysterical in every sense of the word. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she waives her right to anonymity due to the support behind her.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: NAG1 on March 28, 2018, 01:59:53 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 01:45:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 01:38:55 PM
Where is the clampit that said a quick result would result in a guilty verdict?

Here??...I posted this:

God only knows, as long as it takes.

Some say that if the jury comes back quickly it's likely to be a guilty verdict and the longer it takes the more likely it is to be not guilty, or maybe that just in films!


Dont think that was aimed at you AQMP
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 02:03:53 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 01:57:45 PM
Every woman in Ireland under the age of 25 seems to be believe her. Their Twitter outrage is hysterical in every sense of the word. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she waives her right to anonymity due to the support behind her.

I know I'm a Philistine in these matters but Twitter outrage doesn't seem to me to be a good base to build a legal case on.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 28, 2018, 02:05:59 PM
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/irfu-release-statement-following-rugby-rape-trial-not-guilty-verdicts-36752705.html

The IRFU released a statement following the verdicts, which read;

"The IRFU and Ulster Rugby note the verdict handed down today at the Belfast Crown Court in relation to the case brought against Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding. We wish to acknowledge that this has undoubtedly been a difficult and extremely traumatic time for all involved.


"To respect the judicial proceedings, the IRFU and Ulster Rugby postponed any internal review of the matter with the players, until the proceedings concluded.

"IRFU and Ulster Rugby officials will review the matter, in line with existing procedures for all contracted players. A Review Committee, made up of senior representatives of the IRFU and Ulster Rugby, has been appointed and will conclude its review as soon as practicable.


"The players will continue to be relieved of all duties while the Review Committee is in process and determining its findings."
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 02:07:08 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 01:57:45 PM
Every woman in Ireland under the age of 25 seems to be believe her. Their Twitter outrage is hysterical in every sense of the word. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she waives her right to anonymity due to the support behind her.

Ive read a few tweets that go way past the line into libel territory...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 02:07:41 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 01:36:52 PM
Did you read the criteria for rape that has been posted here numerous times by David?

The girl may not have consented, but the guys may have reasonably believed she did.

That is not the same as her lying.

I'm not surprised at the verdict. It was always he said/she said, and as I said at the time, the witness statement *had* to introduce an element of doubt.

That would be true if it wasn't for the McIlroy acquittal. I don't see a way for the jury to have said we believe her but we still acquit McIlroy (unlike with Jackson and Olding).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 02:09:01 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 01:45:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 01:38:55 PM
Where is the clampit that said a quick result would result in a guilty verdict?

Here??...I posted this:

God only knows, as long as it takes.

Some say that if the jury comes back quickly it's likely to be a guilty verdict and the longer it takes the more likely it is to be not guilty, or maybe that just in films!


Clampit  ;)

Though i was conviced it was Syferus, i'm sure its somewhere though
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 02:09:47 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 02:07:08 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 01:57:45 PM
Every woman in Ireland under the age of 25 seems to be believe her. Their Twitter outrage is hysterical in every sense of the word. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she waives her right to anonymity due to the support behind her.

Ive read a few tweets that go way past the line into libel territory...
Aye some crazy shit saying it doesn't matter what the verdict is, Jackson and Olding are rapists etc. One doll said all the evidence of rape was there and it was a fit up from the start as there were 8 men on the jury and the complainant called it from the start that she wouldn't get justice etc.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 02:10:59 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 02:07:41 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 01:36:52 PM
Did you read the criteria for rape that has been posted here numerous times by David?

The girl may not have consented, but the guys may have reasonably believed she did.

That is not the same as her lying.

I'm not surprised at the verdict. It was always he said/she said, and as I said at the time, the witness statement *had* to introduce an element of doubt.

That would be true if it wasn't for the McIlroy acquittal. I don't see a way for the jury to have said we believe her but we still acquit McIlroy (unlike with Jackson and Olding).

Good point.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 01:43:19 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 01:27:16 PM
Unanimous verdict after nine weeks of evidence. The jury were in no doubt who was lying.
The Prosecution Service should have a good review of the decision to prosecute.

At least some of the defendants were lying, and that's a fact.

Their accounts were riddled with contradictions of each others' testimony.

A not guilty verdict doesn't amount to saying the complainant was lying - it says nothing of the sort.

Give up. The jury has spoken

Please address the points I made. You didn't.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 28, 2018, 02:12:18 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 02:03:53 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 01:57:45 PM
Every woman in Ireland under the age of 25 seems to be believe her. Their Twitter outrage is hysterical in every sense of the word. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she waives her right to anonymity due to the support behind her.

I know I'm a Philistine in these matters but Twitter outrage doesn't seem to me to be a good base to build a legal case on.

As has been mentioned above there is the possibility that (barring inconsistencies related to either trauma or alcohol) that nobody is lying here. i.e. She did not consent and "froze" but the guys had no reason to think that she was not consenting or had withdrawn consent.

In any case, no winners here except the lawyers. I agree with the comment earlier that regardless of who you do or do not believe, the publicity and level of detail this case has disclosed will reduce the likelihood of women coming forward on rape cases. Anonymity for all parties until a guilty verdict is returned would be to everyone's benefit in my opinion.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Kickham csc on March 28, 2018, 02:14:55 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 01:27:16 PM
Unanimous verdict after nine weeks of evidence. The jury were in no doubt who was lying.
The Prosecution Service should have a good review of the decision to prosecute.

Don't think it is as easy as saying that there was no doubt who was lying. Without rock solid material evidence to collaborate one version of events over another, the case becomes a he said / she said argument which doesn't then to deliver unanimous decisions are Unconscious biases will come into effect and if any of the team have doubts, you can't convict, so one holdout can lead to a not guilt decision.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 28, 2018, 02:19:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 02:09:01 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 01:45:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 01:38:55 PM
Where is the clampit that said a quick result would result in a guilty verdict?

Here??...I posted this:

God only knows, as long as it takes.

Some say that if the jury comes back quickly it's likely to be a guilty verdict and the longer it takes the more likely it is to be not guilty, or maybe that just in films!


Clampit  ;)

Though i was conviced it was Syferus, i'm sure its somewhere though

Yeah he came in behind AQMP if I remember correctly to contradict him
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 02:19:26 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 28, 2018, 02:12:18 PM


As has been mentioned above there is the possibility that (barring inconsistencies related to either trauma or alcohol) that nobody is lying here. i.e. She did not consent and "froze" but the guys had no reason to think that she was not consenting or had withdrawn consent.


Given the massive inconsistencies between the defendants accounts', at least some of the defendants were lying. It is impossible that they were not, because their accounts directly contradict each other.

Jackson's and McIlroy's accounts of the time McIlroy entered the room, for instance, directly contradict each other. McIlroy claimed he recieved oral sex from the woman and was talking to Jackson as this happened. Jackson said "that didn't happen", that McIlroy never even entered the room. One of them has to be lying.

The accounts of how the complainant left the house were all over the place - the accounts of Jackson, McIlroy and Harrison all contradicted each other. At least two of them had to be lying.





Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dougal Maguire on March 28, 2018, 02:21:27 PM
God help whoever is going to have to carry drink to them tonight
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 01:43:19 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 01:27:16 PM
Unanimous verdict after nine weeks of evidence. The jury were in no doubt who was lying.
The Prosecution Service should have a good review of the decision to prosecute.

At least some of the defendants were lying, and that's a fact.

Their accounts were riddled with contradictions of each others' testimony.

A not guilty verdict doesn't amount to saying the complainant was lying - it says nothing of the sort.

Give up. The jury has spoken

Please address the points I made. You didn't.
Yes I have
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 28, 2018, 02:23:54 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 02:19:26 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 28, 2018, 02:12:18 PM


As has been mentioned above there is the possibility that (barring inconsistencies related to either trauma or alcohol) that nobody is lying here. i.e. She did not consent and "froze" but the guys had no reason to think that she was not consenting or had withdrawn consent.


Given the massive inconsistencies between the defendants accounts', at least some of the defendants were lying. It is impossible that they were not, because their accounts directly contradict each other.

Jackson's and McIlroy's accounts of the time McIlroy entered the room, for instance, directly contradict each other. McIlroy claimed he recieved oral sex from the woman and was talking to Jackson as this happened. Jackson said "that didn't happen", that McIlroy never even entered the room. One of them has to be lying.

The accounts of how the complainant left the house were all over the place - the accounts of Jackson, McIlroy and Harrison all contradicted each other. At least two of them had to be lying.

As do many parts of the womans evidence contradict previous statements etc she made
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Keyser soze on March 28, 2018, 02:24:57 PM
Apparently Blane McIlroy is demanding a retrial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 28, 2018, 02:27:20 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 02:19:26 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 28, 2018, 02:12:18 PM


As has been mentioned above there is the possibility that (barring inconsistencies related to either trauma or alcohol) that nobody is lying here. i.e. She did not consent and "froze" but the guys had no reason to think that she was not consenting or had withdrawn consent.


Given the massive inconsistencies between the defendants accounts', at least some of the defendants were lying. It is impossible that they were not, because their accounts directly contradict each other.

Jackson's and McIlroy's accounts of the time McIlroy entered the room, for instance, directly contradict each other. McIlroy claimed he recieved oral sex from the woman and was talking to Jackson as this happened. Jackson said "that didn't happen", that McIlroy never even entered the room. One of them has to be lying.

The accounts of how the complainant left the house were all over the place - the accounts of Jackson, McIlroy and Harrison all contradicted each other. At least two of them had to be lying.

Fair point, what I meant was nobody is lying in respect of the key "Was there consent" question.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 02:27:59 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 02:19:26 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 28, 2018, 02:12:18 PM


As has been mentioned above there is the possibility that (barring inconsistencies related to either trauma or alcohol) that nobody is lying here. i.e. She did not consent and "froze" but the guys had no reason to think that she was not consenting or had withdrawn consent.


Given the massive inconsistencies between the defendants accounts', at least some of the defendants were lying. It is impossible that they were not, because their accounts directly contradict each other.

Jackson's and McIlroy's accounts of the time McIlroy entered the room, for instance, directly contradict each other. McIlroy claimed he recieved oral sex from the woman and was talking to Jackson as this happened. Jackson said "that didn't happen", that McIlroy never even entered the room. One of them has to be lying.

The accounts of how the complainant left the house were all over the place - the accounts of Jackson, McIlroy and Harrison all contradicted each other. At least two of them had to be lying.

With the speed of the verdict I'd say they didn't even consider the defendant's evidence.  I'd guess it was based on the complainants evidence and her credibility??  I mean the fact that the defendants contradicted each other didn't change her evidence, and if you don't believe her, then it matters less what the defendants said.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on March 28, 2018, 02:32:34 PM
My view of events was that she blew Jackson and olding, gets caught in the act by Florence and then Mc ilroy comes in trying to get in on the act after olding leaves. The woman get upset by the manner in which the men were passing her around, leaves in tears and being upset she texts her friends to say she was raped. Once she says that they get into hysterics and she can't back down by saying "ah it wasn't really rape I just got treated like shite".

I've always thought Mc Ilroy was guilty of exposure just because that to me seems a likely scenario. She'd no reason to make up an extravagant lie involving Mc ilroy, so in some way I believe there was some interaction between them that night that upset her. Whilst all accounts are inconsistent wth each other the truth probably lies in the middle of them all.

I feel sorry for Jackson and Harrison, seem decent enough. Mc ilroy and olding probably had a sexual assault case coming some day or other..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: MoChara on March 28, 2018, 02:39:35 PM
There's an 'I Believe Her' rally being held at the The Spire on O'Connells street tomorrow if any one fancies it.... and I'm not joking
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 28, 2018, 02:42:26 PM
A dilemna for Ulster rugby, how long have Jackson and Olding got left on their contracts?

I think a parting of the ways via mutual consent would suit all parties here. I'd heard a few weeks ago that Jackson had an offer of a €600k contract awaiting to play in France.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 28, 2018, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 28, 2018, 02:42:26 PM
A dilemna for Ulster rugby, how long have Jackson and Olding got left on their contracts?

I think a parting of the ways via mutual consent would suit all parties here. I'd heard a few weeks ago that Jackson had an offer of a €600k contract awaiting to play in France.
That would be the end of his Ireland career
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 02:48:35 PM
Quote from: MoChara on March 28, 2018, 02:39:35 PM
There's an 'I Believe Her' rally being held at the The Spire on O'Connells street tomorrow if any one fancies it.... and I'm not joking

Ah here.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 28, 2018, 02:49:16 PM
Quote from: MoChara on March 28, 2018, 02:39:35 PM
There's an 'I Believe Her' rally being held at the The Spire on O'Connells street tomorrow if any one fancies it.... and I'm not joking

There will probably be a Go Fund me page set up for the IP
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: omagh_gael on March 28, 2018, 02:53:21 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 28, 2018, 02:49:16 PM
Quote from: MoChara on March 28, 2018, 02:39:35 PM
There's an 'I Believe Her' rally being held at the The Spire on O'Connells street tomorrow if any one fancies it.... and I'm not joking

There will probably be a Go Fund me page set up for the IP

Where do you think Syf is now?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 02:53:44 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 28, 2018, 02:42:26 PM
A dilemna for Ulster rugby, how long have Jackson and Olding got left on their contracts?

I think a parting of the ways via mutual consent would suit all parties here. I'd heard a few weeks ago that Jackson had an offer of a €600k contract awaiting to play in France.

I'm still thinking with the season over, time will pass - a new coach will come in and might have his own demands etc....there's a chance they could be togging out for Ulster come first game next season tbh.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: omagh_gael on March 28, 2018, 02:53:21 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 28, 2018, 02:49:16 PM
Quote from: MoChara on March 28, 2018, 02:39:35 PM
There's an 'I Believe Her' rally being held at the The Spire on O'Connells street tomorrow if any one fancies it.... and I'm not joking

There will probably be a Go Fund me page set up for the IP

Where do you think Syf is now?

Setting up a soup kitchen just down side street to the spire there, probably by Subway.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 28, 2018, 02:59:17 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 28, 2018, 02:49:16 PM
Quote from: MoChara on March 28, 2018, 02:39:35 PM
There's an 'I Believe Her' rally being held at the The Spire on O'Connells street tomorrow if any one fancies it.... and I'm not joking

There will probably be a Go Fund me page set up for the IP

Think I saw there one in Belfast too
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mourne Red on March 28, 2018, 03:06:28 PM
Gary Walsh of Laois will have landed himself in some bother with his tweet today hopefully
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 03:07:51 PM
I think the fireside lawyers have done rightly!!

Can we have the next case to decide please?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 03:08:14 PM
I note a wide difference in tone between the statements from Jackson's and Olding's legal teams.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 03:10:41 PM
Quote from: Mourne Red on March 28, 2018, 03:06:28 PM
Gary Walsh of Laois will have landed himself in some bother with his tweet today hopefully
Aye what a tool. He'll be torn to shreds.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 03:11:52 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 28, 2018, 02:23:54 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 02:19:26 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 28, 2018, 02:12:18 PM


As has been mentioned above there is the possibility that (barring inconsistencies related to either trauma or alcohol) that nobody is lying here. i.e. She did not consent and "froze" but the guys had no reason to think that she was not consenting or had withdrawn consent.


Given the massive inconsistencies between the defendants accounts', at least some of the defendants were lying. It is impossible that they were not, because their accounts directly contradict each other.

Jackson's and McIlroy's accounts of the time McIlroy entered the room, for instance, directly contradict each other. McIlroy claimed he recieved oral sex from the woman and was talking to Jackson as this happened. Jackson said "that didn't happen", that McIlroy never even entered the room. One of them has to be lying.

The accounts of how the complainant left the house were all over the place - the accounts of Jackson, McIlroy and Harrison all contradicted each other. At least two of them had to be lying.

As do many parts of the womans evidence contradict previous statements etc she made

Name them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 03:12:45 PM
Quote from: Mourne Red on March 28, 2018, 03:06:28 PM
Gary Walsh of Laois will have landed himself in some bother with his tweet today hopefully

Your man could be doing without twitter....not his first indiscretion.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 03:13:27 PM
Will we shut her down at 200 pages?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 03:14:30 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 03:13:27 PM
Will we shut her down at 200 pages?

and re open a new one for the civil case?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Geoff Tipps on March 28, 2018, 03:17:26 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 02:53:44 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 28, 2018, 02:42:26 PM
A dilemna for Ulster rugby, how long have Jackson and Olding got left on their contracts?

I think a parting of the ways via mutual consent would suit all parties here. I'd heard a few weeks ago that Jackson had an offer of a €600k contract awaiting to play in France.

I'm still thinking with the season over, time will pass - a new coach will come in and might have his own demands etc....there's a chance they could be togging out for Ulster come first game next season tbh.

Think there's very little chance of that happening.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 03:18:27 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.

Agreed. Anonymity would have been better for all concerned
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 28, 2018, 03:22:43 PM
Can the defendants recover the tens of thousands of pounds racked up in legal fees during the trial now that they have been proven not guilty? Apparentlt Olding had to apply for legal aid during the course of the trial for financial reasons.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 03:25:42 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 28, 2018, 03:22:43 PM
Can the defendants recover the tens of thousands of pounds racked up in legal fees during the trial now that they have been proven not guilty? Apparentlt Olding had to apply for legal aid during the course of the trial for financial reasons.
Tens?! It'll be hundreds.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: DuffleKing on March 28, 2018, 03:25:59 PM


Loss of earnings?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on March 28, 2018, 03:30:35 PM
Jackson missed being part of the Irish squad this year that went on to win a grand slam because of this.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 28, 2018, 03:32:26 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 03:25:42 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 28, 2018, 03:22:43 PM
Can the defendants recover the tens of thousands of pounds racked up in legal fees during the trial now that they have been proven not guilty? Apparentlt Olding had to apply for legal aid during the course of the trial for financial reasons.
Tens?! It'll be hundreds.

Probably.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 03:36:34 PM
Quote from: Mourne Red on March 28, 2018, 03:06:28 PM
Gary Walsh of Laois will have landed himself in some bother with his tweet today hopefully
Mr. Walsh deserves to be charged with bringing the GAA into disrepute and be landed with a nice little ban for his trouble.

Even three months would comfortably cover the entirety of Laois's championship campaign.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GalwayBayBoy on March 28, 2018, 03:52:56 PM
Quote from: trileacman on March 28, 2018, 02:32:34 PM
My view of events was that she blew Jackson and olding, gets caught in the act by Florence and then Mc ilroy comes in trying to get in on the act after olding leaves. The woman get upset by the manner in which the men were passing her around, leaves in tears and being upset she texts her friends to say she was raped. Once she says that they get into hysterics and she can't back down by saying "ah it wasn't really rape I just got treated like shite".

I've always thought Mc Ilroy was guilty of exposure just because that to me seems a likely scenario. She'd no reason to make up an extravagant lie involving Mc ilroy, so in some way I believe there was some interaction between them that night that upset her. Whilst all accounts are inconsistent wth each other the truth probably lies in the middle of them all.

I feel sorry for Jackson and Harrison, seem decent enough. Mc ilroy and olding probably had a sexual assault case coming some day or other..

Felt for a while that something close to the above is what happened. It was consensual with Jackson and Olding. McIlroy (who seems a shady character) tried to get himself involved. Her friend walked in on her in flagrante with Jackson and Olding in a threesome but had no reason to feel it wasn't consensual. The girl probably felt a bit of shame for getting caught in the act like that and demeaned by the likes of McIlroy waving his willy at her. Everyone had a lot of alcohol on board and hey presto.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 03:55:00 PM
Dara Florence wasn't and isn't her friend.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: omagh_gael on March 28, 2018, 03:57:20 PM
What sort of bollix is Gary Walsh? For those not on Twitter he said...

"Where's your ones name from the Paddy Jackson trail? It's her that should be destroyed in the papers now, all yee feminists come at me, I'll throw the kitchen sink at ya."

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 04:00:13 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 03:36:34 PM
Quote from: Mourne Red on March 28, 2018, 03:06:28 PM
Gary Walsh of Laois will have landed himself in some bother with his tweet today hopefully
Mr. Walsh deserves to be charged with bringing the GAA into disrepute and be landed with a nice little ban for his trouble.

Even three months would comfortably cover the entirety of Laois's championship campaign.

Can't see anything on his Twitter from today? Anyone able to DM me what he said?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:33:08 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 28, 2018, 01:18:36 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 01:15:23 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??

Of course not. That already had to be clarified on this thread. People see what they want to see.

It's absolutely true!! FFS, why would you say otherwise Seanie?:

This directly from Rosanna Cooney's twitter:
~~~~~~~~~~
Judge:
Whether or not there are inconsistencies in the account the woman gave to the Doctor in the Rowan clinic and the account she gave to the police is a matter for you. If you decide there are inconsistencies you must decide why that must be so.

Trauma is a reason that can explain inconsistencies. If you are satisfied that trauma is the reason then the inconsistencies might not be that important to you.

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the complainants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Without the complainant's evidence there was clearly no case against the defendants. Medical evidence was very much inconclusive.

So as I said before, the jury had to decide whether she lied or made a mistake (as a result of trauma) when making the initial false allegation against Olding. Therefore, the judge was effectively instructing the jury to acquit if they thought she lied to the doctor (given the lack of other evidence).

This is the third or fourth time you've been pulled on this. You're either being deliberately disingenuous (which would make you a p***k as you'd be trying to skew the facts of a rape trial) or you're stupid. I'm not sure which it is but you feel free to decide.

What the judge actually said was that if they felt she lied to the doctor, she was directing them not to rely on that evidence unless they believed there was other independent evidence to support it. Yesterday you went as far at posting the utterly stupid comment that the judge had said, in these circumstances, the lads should "walk free".
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 28, 2018, 04:02:28 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 04:00:13 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 03:36:34 PM
Quote from: Mourne Red on March 28, 2018, 03:06:28 PM
Gary Walsh of Laois will have landed himself in some bother with his tweet today hopefully
Mr. Walsh deserves to be charged with bringing the GAA into disrepute and be landed with a nice little ban for his trouble.

Even three months would comfortably cover the entirety of Laois's championship campaign.

Can't see anything on his Twitter from today? Anyone able to DM me what he said?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZYS2UJVMAI15-J.jpg)

He's been in bother before hasn't he?? Sounds like he's a bit light in the head!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 04:06:23 PM
Olding seems to have got straight back on the horse!!

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PtrpsXB0KqU/maxresdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: paddyjohn on March 28, 2018, 04:06:52 PM
Said tweet now deleted. He was the one that got kicked off the panel last year for having a go at the management.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 28, 2018, 04:11:16 PM
Quote from: paddyjohn on March 28, 2018, 04:06:52 PM
Said tweet now deleted. He was the one that got kicked off the panel last year for having a go at the management.

Clearly not the sharpest tool in the box. Good job he deleted that tweet, no one will see it now....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 04:14:47 PM
Quote from: omagh_gael on March 28, 2018, 03:57:20 PM
What sort of bollix is Gary Walsh? For those not on Twitter he said...

"Where's your ones name from the Paddy Jackson trail? It's her that should be destroyed in the papers now, all yee feminists come at me, I'll throw the kitchen sink at ya."

I think the answer is 'Two ends of one'.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TyroneOnlooker on March 28, 2018, 04:20:38 PM
Legal bill likely to be in the hundreds of thousands for each defendant. Jackson and Olding will need contracts in France to pay for it all!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 04:28:38 PM
Quote from: TyroneOnlooker on March 28, 2018, 04:20:38 PM
Legal bill likely to be in the hundreds of thousands for each defendant. Jackson and Olding will need contracts in France to pay for it all!

Heard PJ paid 300,000 up front?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 04:31:39 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 28, 2018, 04:02:28 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 04:00:13 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 03:36:34 PM
Quote from: Mourne Red on March 28, 2018, 03:06:28 PM
Gary Walsh of Laois will have landed himself in some bother with his tweet today hopefully
Mr. Walsh deserves to be charged with bringing the GAA into disrepute and be landed with a nice little ban for his trouble.

Even three months would comfortably cover the entirety of Laois's championship campaign.
Laois. The inbreeding capital of Irwland

Can't see anything on his Twitter from today? Anyone able to DM me what he said?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZYS2UJVMAI15-J.jpg)

He's been in bother before hasn't he?? Sounds like he's a bit light in the head!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Therealdonald on March 28, 2018, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

A person who is acquitted of a crime is now not innocent? In who's eyes? Syferus'?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 04:40:00 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.



Hes alive!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 28, 2018, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.
Nonetheless I still think it's unfair.  Put your prejudice aside for one moment f you can.  So you think a genuinely innocent person in the same scenario should be out of pocket hundreds of thousands of pounds?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 04:43:00 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

Of Jesus .... quit man, just quit.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 04:45:12 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 28, 2018, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

A person who is acquitted of a crime is now not innocent? In who's eyes? Syferus'?

He's correct. How many times does this have to be repeated on this thread and this forum?!

Jackson, or indeed all four of them, may be 100% innocent. The "not guilty" verdict does not, however, declare them innocent. It means they haven't been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:48:38 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 04:43:00 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

Of Jesus .... quit man, just quit.

For someone in the profession it's pretty mind blogging that you'd even try to pull someone up on that of all things. You can choose to believe this verdict completely excuses all evidence to the contrary, but that is not what the verdict does in any shape or form.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Farrandeelin on March 28, 2018, 04:50:56 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:48:38 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 04:43:00 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

Of Jesus .... quit man, just quit.

For someone in the profession it's pretty mind blogging that you'd even try to pull someone up on that of all things. You can choose to believe this verdict completely excuses all evidence to the contrary, but that is not what the verdict does in any shape or form.

Post up all the evidence to the contrary there Syf.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 28, 2018, 04:53:27 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 04:45:12 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 28, 2018, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

A person who is acquitted of a crime is now not innocent? In who's eyes? Syferus'?

He's correct. How many times does this have to be repeated on this thread and this forum?!

Jackson, or indeed all four of them, may be 100% innocent. The "not guilty" verdict does not, however, declare them innocent. It means they haven't been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I accept that but a civilised society has to accept the rule of law?

Are we just to disregard the whole trial because of a few snippets of information gleaned in 240 character bursts and decide these lads are guilty anyway because it sounds like it? One thing they are guilty of is being complete assholes but alas this is not a crime!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 28, 2018, 04:54:30 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 28, 2018, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.
Nonetheless I still think it's unfair.  Put your prejudice aside for one moment f you can.  So you think a genuinely innocent person in the same scenario should be out of pocket hundreds of thousands of pounds?

I believe you can re-claim legal costs if acquitted - relevant paragraph about half way down - this mentions even if you were turned down for Legal Aid.  This is probably UK - pretty sure NI would be the same - perhaps some of the guys in the profession will know for 100% if this is accurate

https://factuk.org/how-to-claim-court-expenses-and-legal-costs-if-you-are-aquitted/

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 04:59:23 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 28, 2018, 04:53:27 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 04:45:12 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 28, 2018, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

A person who is acquitted of a crime is now not innocent? In who's eyes? Syferus'?

He's correct. How many times does this have to be repeated on this thread and this forum?!

Jackson, or indeed all four of them, may be 100% innocent. The "not guilty" verdict does not, however, declare them innocent. It means they haven't been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I accept that but a civilised society has to accept the rule of law?

Are we just to disregard the whole trial because of a few snippets of information gleaned in 240 character bursts and decide these lads are guilty anyway because it sounds like it? One thing they are guilty of is being complete assholes but alas this is not a crime!!

Where did I suggest any of that? I pointed out that Syferus, twat that he is, posted a factually correct statement.

It's not my fault that the board and thread are full of numpties incapable of (or worse, disinterested in) understanding how the law actually works. The significance of a verdict and what it actually means is a good place for people to start rather than ranting and raving.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:48:38 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 04:43:00 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

Of Jesus .... quit man, just quit.

For someone in the profession it's pretty mind blogging that you'd even try to pull someone up on that of all things. You can choose to believe this verdict completely excuses all evidence to the contrary, but that is not what the verdict does in any shape or form.

One of the singular, most basic concepts of the criminal justice system is that the person is deemed innocent until they are proven guilty. All the available evidence was adjudicated on and the were not found guilty therefore they continue to be innocent in the eyes of the law and that is that. You have an agend here and your agenda has been blown out of the water. 11 people who have sat and listened to all the evidence, all the witness statements, all forensics and all the directions by the judge who knows better than everyone on here, and these 11 people in less than 4 hours categorically and unanimously found these 4 men not guilty. That's the end of that and no matter how you'd like to twist and turn this and use semantics they are innocent. End. Of. Story
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 28, 2018, 05:01:44 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 28, 2018, 04:54:30 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 28, 2018, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.
Nonetheless I still think it's unfair.  Put your prejudice aside for one moment f you can.  So you think a genuinely innocent person in the same scenario should be out of pocket hundreds of thousands of pounds?

I believe you can re-claim legal costs if acquitted - relevant paragraph about half way down - this mentions even if you were turned down for Legal Aid.  This is probably UK - pretty sure NI would be the same - perhaps some of the guys in the profession will know for 100% if this is accurate

https://factuk.org/how-to-claim-court-expenses-and-legal-costs-if-you-are-aquitted/
Cheers for that Frank
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 05:03:30 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 28, 2018, 05:01:44 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 28, 2018, 04:54:30 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 28, 2018, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.
Nonetheless I still think it's unfair.  Put your prejudice aside for one moment f you can.  So you think a genuinely innocent person in the same scenario should be out of pocket hundreds of thousands of pounds?

I believe you can re-claim legal costs if acquitted - relevant paragraph about half way down - this mentions even if you were turned down for Legal Aid.  This is probably UK - pretty sure NI would be the same - perhaps some of the guys in the profession will know for 100% if this is accurate

https://factuk.org/how-to-claim-court-expenses-and-legal-costs-if-you-are-aquitted/
Cheers for that Frank

I think that may only relate to English cases but I'm open to correction.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 28, 2018, 05:04:01 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 28, 2018, 05:01:44 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 28, 2018, 04:54:30 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 28, 2018, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.
Nonetheless I still think it's unfair.  Put your prejudice aside for one moment f you can.  So you think a genuinely innocent person in the same scenario should be out of pocket hundreds of thousands of pounds?

I believe you can re-claim legal costs if acquitted - relevant paragraph about half way down - this mentions even if you were turned down for Legal Aid.  This is probably UK - pretty sure NI would be the same - perhaps some of the guys in the profession will know for 100% if this is accurate

https://factuk.org/how-to-claim-court-expenses-and-legal-costs-if-you-are-aquitted/
Cheers for that Frank

Could be wrong though - maybe bcb1 or david could clarify?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 05:04:08 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 04:59:23 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 28, 2018, 04:53:27 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 04:45:12 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 28, 2018, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

A person who is acquitted of a crime is now not innocent? In who's eyes? Syferus'?

He's correct. How many times does this have to be repeated on this thread and this forum?!

Jackson, or indeed all four of them, may be 100% innocent. The "not guilty" verdict does not, however, declare them innocent. It means they haven't been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I accept that but a civilised society has to accept the rule of law?

Are we just to disregard the whole trial because of a few snippets of information gleaned in 240 character bursts and decide these lads are guilty anyway because it sounds like it? One thing they are guilty of is being complete assholes but alas this is not a crime!!

Where did I suggest any of that? I pointed out that Syferus, twat that he is, posted a factually correct statement.

It's not my fault that the board and thread are full of numpties incapable of (or worse, disinterested in) understanding how the law actually works. The significance of a verdict and what it actually means is a good place for people to start rather than ranting and raving.

Accept all that, but is the basic premise Innocent until Proven Guilty. If you are not proven guilty, you are, in fact, innocent in the eyes of the law.

Edit: BCB beat me to it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Therealdonald on March 28, 2018, 05:06:46 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 04:59:23 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 28, 2018, 04:53:27 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 04:45:12 PM
Quote from: Therealdonald on March 28, 2018, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

A person who is acquitted of a crime is now not innocent? In who's eyes? Syferus'?

He's correct. How many times does this have to be repeated on this thread and this forum?!

Jackson, or indeed all four of them, may be 100% innocent. The "not guilty" verdict does not, however, declare them innocent. It means they haven't been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I accept that but a civilised society has to accept the rule of law?

Are we just to disregard the whole trial because of a few snippets of information gleaned in 240 character bursts and decide these lads are guilty anyway because it sounds like it? One thing they are guilty of is being complete assholes but alas this is not a crime!!

Where did I suggest any of that? I pointed out that Syferus, twat that he is, posted a factually correct statement.

It's not my fault that the board and thread are full of numpties incapable of (or worse, disinterested in) understanding how the law actually works. The significance of a verdict and what it actually means is a good place for people to start rather than ranting and raving.

That's completely balls. Those involved have been found not guilty/innocent. Whether or not YOU think they are innocent is entirely irrelevant. Just get over yourselves boys. Evidence pointed to the fact they weren't guilty, jury found them as such. Move on.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rossfan on March 28, 2018, 05:07:18 PM
Sufferus is upset because the Jury stupidly went on the evidence presented in Court rather than doing what he wanted.
He really is an embarrassment to our County and needs to come out of his own arrogant arsehole and stop polluting GAABOARD with his non stop drivel.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:09:17 PM
It's not complete balls, it's indisputable fact. The four of them may be innocent but the court has not found them innocent. The court had found them not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to continue to be presumed innocent.

AZ, we've been through this before. These subtleties are important.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 05:10:23 PM
#ibelievetheyarenotguilty
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 05:12:06 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:09:17 PM
It's not complete balls, it's indisputable fact. The four of them may be innocent but the court has not found them innocent. The court had found them not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to continue to be presumed innocent.

AZ, we've been through this before. These subtleties are important.

I understand the nuance, but to all intents and purposes, they are presumed innocent (as you put it) in the eyes of the law. I'm not sure of your profession gallsman, so apologies if I'm being facetious, but I would accept the word of people who work in this area.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 28, 2018, 05:12:37 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on March 28, 2018, 04:54:30 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on March 28, 2018, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 04:32:23 PM
Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.
Nonetheless I still think it's unfair.  Put your prejudice aside for one moment f you can.  So you think a genuinely innocent person in the same scenario should be out of pocket hundreds of thousands of pounds?

I believe you can re-claim legal costs if acquitted - relevant paragraph about half way down - this mentions even if you were turned down for Legal Aid.  This is probably UK - pretty sure NI would be the same - perhaps some of the guys in the profession will know for 100% if this is accurate

https://factuk.org/how-to-claim-court-expenses-and-legal-costs-if-you-are-aquitted/
Lawyerfriend told me PJ got no legal aid and has now applied for his costs.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 05:13:32 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 28, 2018, 05:07:18 PM
Sufferus is upset because the Jury stupidly went on the evidence presented in Court rather than doing what he wanted.
He really is an embarrassment to our County and needs to come out of his own arrogant arsehole and stop polluting GAABOARD with his non stop drivel.

Please leave this one to the adults, Rossfan. Embarrassing as usual.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:16:12 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 05:12:06 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:09:17 PM
It's not complete balls, it's indisputable fact. The four of them may be innocent but the court has not found them innocent. The court had found them not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to continue to be presumed innocent.

AZ, we've been through this before. These subtleties are important.

I understand the nuance, but to all intents and purposes, they are presumed innocent (as you put it) in the eyes of the law. I'm not sure of your profession gallsman, so apologies if I'm being facetious, but I would accept the word of people who work in this area.

And that nuance is important, as I'm sure BCB would agree.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 05:20:24 PM
Any of you follow Sophie Long on Twitter?

Don't think she's quite got the presumption of innocence until proven guilty thing either.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 28, 2018, 05:21:15 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:33:08 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 28, 2018, 01:18:36 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 01:15:23 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??

Of course not. That already had to be clarified on this thread. People see what they want to see.

It's absolutely true!! FFS, why would you say otherwise Seanie?:

This directly from Rosanna Cooney's twitter:
~~~~~~~~~~
Judge:
Whether or not there are inconsistencies in the account the woman gave to the Doctor in the Rowan clinic and the account she gave to the police is a matter for you. If you decide there are inconsistencies you must decide why that must be so.

Trauma is a reason that can explain inconsistencies. If you are satisfied that trauma is the reason then the inconsistencies might not be that important to you.

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the complainants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Without the complainant's evidence there was clearly no case against the defendants. Medical evidence was very much inconclusive.

So as I said before, the jury had to decide whether she lied or made a mistake (as a result of trauma) when making the initial false allegation against Olding. Therefore, the judge was effectively instructing the jury to acquit if they thought she lied to the doctor (given the lack of other evidence).

This is the third or fourth time you've been pulled on this. You're either being deliberately disingenuous (which would make you a p***k as you'd be trying to skew the facts of a rape trial) or you're stupid. I'm not sure which it is but you feel free to decide.

What the judge actually said was that if they felt she lied to the doctor, she was directing them not to rely on that evidence unless they believed there was other independent evidence to support it. Yesterday you went as far at posting the utterly stupid comment that the judge had said, in these circumstances, the lads should "walk free".

I am as entitled to give my opinion on this as anyone, and I have no need for your pomposity.

If you don't think the judge's comments below were not important then you are entitled to that opinion. For me, in my opinion, I think it was absolutely key in the quick decision to acquit the defendants on all charges:

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the complainants.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 05:23:35 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:16:12 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 05:12:06 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:09:17 PM
It's not complete balls, it's indisputable fact. The four of them may be innocent but the court has not found them innocent. The court had found them not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to continue to be presumed innocent.

AZ, we've been through this before. These subtleties are important.

I understand the nuance, but to all intents and purposes, they are presumed innocent (as you put it) in the eyes of the law. I'm not sure of your profession gallsman, so apologies if I'm being facetious, but I would accept the word of people who work in this area.

And that nuance is important, as I'm sure BCB would agree.

The presumption is they are innocent as the case against them has not been proven therefore they are innocent. That's it lads. Pretty simple really. You can get twisted up with word play and nuances. They are innocent in the eyes of the law and that is that. If this was a majority verdict after a day or two deliberations then I reckon there could be questions raised but for a quick, unanimous verdict to be called says everything. The whole issue here was consent otherwise the sexual assault charge against PJ could have gone against him. The jury in my opinion believed that she consented and as a consequence the rest of the charges ultimately fell.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:29:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 05:21:15 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:33:08 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 28, 2018, 01:18:36 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 01:15:23 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??

Of course not. That already had to be clarified on this thread. People see what they want to see.

It's absolutely true!! FFS, why would you say otherwise Seanie?:

This directly from Rosanna Cooney's twitter:
~~~~~~~~~~
Judge:
Whether or not there are inconsistencies in the account the woman gave to the Doctor in the Rowan clinic and the account she gave to the police is a matter for you. If you decide there are inconsistencies you must decide why that must be so.

Trauma is a reason that can explain inconsistencies. If you are satisfied that trauma is the reason then the inconsistencies might not be that important to you.

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the complainants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Without the complainant's evidence there was clearly no case against the defendants. Medical evidence was very much inconclusive.

So as I said before, the jury had to decide whether she lied or made a mistake (as a result of trauma) when making the initial false allegation against Olding. Therefore, the judge was effectively instructing the jury to acquit if they thought she lied to the doctor (given the lack of other evidence).

This is the third or fourth time you've been pulled on this. You're either being deliberately disingenuous (which would make you a p***k as you'd be trying to skew the facts of a rape trial) or you're stupid. I'm not sure which it is but you feel free to decide.

What the judge actually said was that if they felt she lied to the doctor, she was directing them not to rely on that evidence unless they believed there was other independent evidence to support it. Yesterday you went as far at posting the utterly stupid comment that the judge had said, in these circumstances, the lads should "walk free".

I am as entitled to give my opinion on this as anyone, and I have no need for your pomposity.

If you don't think the judge's comments below were not important then you are entitled to that opinion. For me, in my opinion, I think it was absolutely key in the quick decision to acquit the defendants on all charges:

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the complainants.


Yes, we've been over this. She followed that with, as you well know,  "unless you find other independent evidence to support what she says"

So, now we've established that you selectively edit statements from the judge, would you like to explain how you arrived at the conclusion that the judge stated that the three should "walk free"?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 05:31:24 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 05:20:24 PM
Any of you follow Sophie Long on Twitter?

Don't think she's quite got the presumption of innocence until proven guilty thing either.

Lost faith in her a while ago when she stated women had reason to fear all men.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 05:35:32 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 05:23:35 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:16:12 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 05:12:06 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:09:17 PM
It's not complete balls, it's indisputable fact. The four of them may be innocent but the court has not found them innocent. The court had found them not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to continue to be presumed innocent.

AZ, we've been through this before. These subtleties are important.

I understand the nuance, but to all intents and purposes, they are presumed innocent (as you put it) in the eyes of the law. I'm not sure of your profession gallsman, so apologies if I'm being facetious, but I would accept the word of people who work in this area.

And that nuance is important, as I'm sure BCB would agree.

The presumption is they are innocent as the case against them has not been proven therefore they are innocent. That's it lads. Pretty simple really. You can get twisted up with word play and nuances. They are innocent in the eyes of the law and that is that. If this was a majority verdict after a day or two deliberations then I reckon there could be questions raised but for a quick, unanimous verdict to be called says everything. The whole issue here was consent otherwise the sexual assault charge against PJ could have gone against him. The jury in my opinion believed that she consented and as a consequence the rest of the charges ultimately fell.

That makes sense bcb1.  Really, once the jury came to the decision that Jackson was not guilty of rape, the rest of the charges fall away.  The jury either believed she had consented, or that it was reasonable for Jackson to think she was consenting.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 05:38:28 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 05:21:15 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:33:08 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 28, 2018, 01:18:36 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 01:15:23 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??

Of course not. That already had to be clarified on this thread. People see what they want to see.

It's absolutely true!! FFS, why would you say otherwise Seanie?:

This directly from Rosanna Cooney's twitter:
~~~~~~~~~~
Judge:
Whether or not there are inconsistencies in the account the woman gave to the Doctor in the Rowan clinic and the account she gave to the police is a matter for you. If you decide there are inconsistencies you must decide why that must be so.

Trauma is a reason that can explain inconsistencies. If you are satisfied that trauma is the reason then the inconsistencies might not be that important to you.

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the complainants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Without the complainant's evidence there was clearly no case against the defendants. Medical evidence was very much inconclusive.

So as I said before, the jury had to decide whether she lied or made a mistake (as a result of trauma) when making the initial false allegation against Olding. Therefore, the judge was effectively instructing the jury to acquit if they thought she lied to the doctor (given the lack of other evidence).

This is the third or fourth time you've been pulled on this. You're either being deliberately disingenuous (which would make you a p***k as you'd be trying to skew the facts of a rape trial) or you're stupid. I'm not sure which it is but you feel free to decide.

What the judge actually said was that if they felt she lied to the doctor, she was directing them not to rely on that evidence unless they believed there was other independent evidence to support it. Yesterday you went as far at posting the utterly stupid comment that the judge had said, in these circumstances, the lads should "walk free".

I am as entitled to give my opinion on this as anyone, and I have no need for your pomposity.

If you don't think the judge's comments below were not important then you are entitled to that opinion. For me, in my opinion, I think it was absolutely key in the quick decision to acquit the defendants on all charges:

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the complainants.


While we're getting all hung up on semantics, was the girl not the complainant?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:39:17 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 05:20:24 PM
Any of you follow Sophie Long on Twitter?

Don't think she's quite got the presumption of innocence until proven guilty thing either.

I'm generally a fan of hers and applaud her progressive unionist views (not sure many unionists do though) but she's gone way off the reservation on this one.

Except for a few bellends at the extremes of the spectrum on here, most of us have generally acknowledged that it is impossible to say what happened that night. In the absence of compelling evidence, it came down to her word against theirs, which makes it nigh on impossible to say that they're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sorry to say it but I lot of the "I believe her" stuff appears to be based on nothing more than she is a fellow woman.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:41:21 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 05:35:32 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 05:23:35 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:16:12 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 05:12:06 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:09:17 PM
It's not complete balls, it's indisputable fact. The four of them may be innocent but the court has not found them innocent. The court had found them not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to continue to be presumed innocent.

AZ, we've been through this before. These subtleties are important.

I understand the nuance, but to all intents and purposes, they are presumed innocent (as you put it) in the eyes of the law. I'm not sure of your profession gallsman, so apologies if I'm being facetious, but I would accept the word of people who work in this area.

And that nuance is important, as I'm sure BCB would agree.

The presumption is they are innocent as the case against them has not been proven therefore they are innocent. That's it lads. Pretty simple really. You can get twisted up with word play and nuances. They are innocent in the eyes of the law and that is that. If this was a majority verdict after a day or two deliberations then I reckon there could be questions raised but for a quick, unanimous verdict to be called says everything. The whole issue here was consent otherwise the sexual assault charge against PJ could have gone against him. The jury in my opinion believed that she consented and as a consequence the rest of the charges ultimately fell.

That makes sense bcb1.  Really, once the jury came to the decision that Jackson was not guilty of rape, the rest of the charges fall away.  The jury either believed she had consented, or that it was reasonable for Jackson to think she was consenting.

I'm not sure I agree with that, particularly in the case of Mcilroy given that Jackson's and his evidence contradicted each other so fundamentally in relation to McIlroy's presence in the room.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: north_antrim_hound on March 28, 2018, 05:44:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 28, 2018, 05:07:18 PM
Sufferus is upset because the Jury stupidly went on the evidence presented in Court rather than doing what he wanted.
He really is an embarrassment to our County and needs to come out of his own arrogant arsehole and stop polluting GAABOARD with his non stop drivel.

That's the worst thing about this sorry affair coming to it's conclusion
The oxygen thief will pollute some other thread with a view nobody either respects or pays heed.
He should be shot with a ball of his own dung
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 28, 2018, 05:55:35 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 28, 2018, 05:20:24 PM
Any of you follow Sophie Long on Twitter?

Don't think she's quite got the presumption of innocence until proven guilty thing either.

When did she become a thing?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 05:55:57 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:41:21 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 05:35:32 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 05:23:35 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:16:12 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 05:12:06 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:09:17 PM
It's not complete balls, it's indisputable fact. The four of them may be innocent but the court has not found them innocent. The court had found them not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to continue to be presumed innocent.

AZ, we've been through this before. These subtleties are important.

I understand the nuance, but to all intents and purposes, they are presumed innocent (as you put it) in the eyes of the law. I'm not sure of your profession gallsman, so apologies if I'm being facetious, but I would accept the word of people who work in this area.

And that nuance is important, as I'm sure BCB would agree.

The presumption is they are innocent as the case against them has not been proven therefore they are innocent. That's it lads. Pretty simple really. You can get twisted up with word play and nuances. They are innocent in the eyes of the law and that is that. If this was a majority verdict after a day or two deliberations then I reckon there could be questions raised but for a quick, unanimous verdict to be called says everything. The whole issue here was consent otherwise the sexual assault charge against PJ could have gone against him. The jury in my opinion believed that she consented and as a consequence the rest of the charges ultimately fell.

That makes sense bcb1.  Really, once the jury came to the decision that Jackson was not guilty of rape, the rest of the charges fall away.  The jury either believed she had consented, or that it was reasonable for Jackson to think she was consenting.

I'm not sure I agree with that, particularly in the case of Mcilroy given that Jackson's and his evidence contradicted each other so fundamentally in relation to McIlroy's presence in the room.

I suppose I'm saying that ultimately they didn't find her account of what happened convincing or credible enough.   The fact that the defendants accounts were all over the place is secondary as she was the one doing the accusing.  Believe her and it's guilty no matter what the defendants say.  Don't believe her and it's not guilty no matter what the defendants say?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on March 28, 2018, 05:56:48 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 28, 2018, 05:44:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 28, 2018, 05:07:18 PM
Sufferus is upset because the Jury stupidly went on the evidence presented in Court rather than doing what he wanted.
He really is an embarrassment to our County and needs to come out of his own arrogant arsehole and stop polluting GAABOARD with his non stop drivel.

That's the worst thing about this sorry affair coming to it's conclusion
The oxygen thief will pollute some other thread with a view nobody either respects or pays heed.
He should be shot with a ball of his own dung

An absolute gobshite of the highest order.  Who continually runs away and hides when anyone refutes his bullshit with some facts.  But it is quite funny to watch him being made a fool of, time and time again.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 06:05:04 PM
This case should never have come to court after the mess the police made of the girl's interview. If they'd asked her the right questions it most likely would have been dropped there and then anyway. The verdict couldn't have been reached much faster given there were 4 defendants. It strongly suggests that reasonable doubt didn't come into it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: paddyjohn on March 28, 2018, 06:08:01 PM
https://www.joe.ie/news/moment-not-guilty-verdict-announced-belfast-trial-620688
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Fuzzman on March 28, 2018, 06:10:04 PM
I've not been following this thread and only read this page but now they were found not guilty should it not be fair and just that her photo be released.
Basically we've all been exposed (pardon the pun) do the defendants photos over the last month and they will have suffered because of that, even now when found not guilty but this lady doesn't have to show her face

Is this what equality is in today's world?
She could have (and maybe she has anyway) ruined these guys lives with her allegations yet not many knows her name or what she looks like

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 06:13:14 PM
Quote from: paddyjohn on March 28, 2018, 06:08:01 PM
https://www.joe.ie/news/moment-not-guilty-verdict-announced-belfast-trial-620688
Hope they're allowed get on with their lives now. Good luck to them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: SLIGONIAN on March 28, 2018, 06:13:38 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZYEd2_X0AAmyMq.jpg)

The bit I don't get the main witness Dara Florence said she saw Jackson having sex with the Woman but Jackson denies having sex with her, doctors testimony support Florence's claim. Her testimony got them off because she said woman wasnt distressed but yet her account contradicted PJ but yet was most relied on. Why did the one of his friends bother bringing her home? The taxi driver thought she was distressed.

Why were watsapp message deleted.

I don't agree with all of that photoshot above I posted, 88% of porn comment is irrelevant and theories of drug taking.

I believe both the accuser and accused should remain anonymous until any trial is over imo.

After this case most women who have actually been raped wont bother going to trial, why bother. This woman was interrogated for 8 days straight by 4 different defence teams compared 0.5/1 day each for the accused. I find that alone unfair plus your relying on the police not to make any mistakes.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 06:14:49 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on March 28, 2018, 06:10:04 PM
I've not been following this thread and only read this page but now they were found not guilty should it not be fair and just that her photo be released.
Basically we've all been exposed (pardon the pun) do the defendants photos over the last month and they will have suffered because of that, even now when found not guilty but this lady doesn't have to show her face

Is this what equality is in today's world?
She could have (and maybe she has anyway) ruined these guys lives with her allegations yet not many knows her name or what she looks like

Jesus Christ, do people actually believe this sort of shite?!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 28, 2018, 06:16:37 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on March 28, 2018, 06:10:04 PM
I've not been following this thread and only read this page but now they were found not guilty should it not be fair and just that her photo be released.
Basically we've all been exposed (pardon the pun) do the defendants photos over the last month and they will have suffered because of that, even now when found not guilty but this lady doesn't have to show her face

Is this what equality is in today's world?
She could have (and maybe she has anyway) ruined these guys lives with her allegations yet not many knows her name or what she looks like

Crazy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 06:20:39 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on March 28, 2018, 06:10:04 PM
I've not been following this thread and only read this page but now they were found not guilty should it not be fair and just that her photo be released.
Basically we've all been exposed (pardon the pun) do the defendants photos over the last month and they will have suffered because of that, even now when found not guilty but this lady doesn't have to show her face

Is this what equality is in today's world?
She could have (and maybe she has anyway) ruined these guys lives with her allegations yet not many knows her name or what she looks like
I don't think this helps anyone let alone potential future claimants. I think all parties should remain anonymous but it would have inevitably been public in such a high profile case. I have been educated on this thread that it's not as simple as saying she lied as she may have believed she didn't give consent and Jackson would say she didn't say no.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rois on March 28, 2018, 06:23:01 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on March 28, 2018, 06:10:04 PM
I've not been following this thread and only read this page but now they were found not guilty should it not be fair and just that her photo be released.
Basically we've all been exposed (pardon the pun) do the defendants photos over the last month and they will have suffered because of that, even now when found not guilty but this lady doesn't have to show her face

Is this what equality is in today's world?
She could have (and maybe she has anyway) ruined these guys lives with her allegations yet not many knows her name or what she looks like
Surprised and disappointed at this post.  Syferus-style in reverse. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 06:25:50 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on March 28, 2018, 06:10:04 PM
I've not been following this thread and only read this page but now they were found not guilty should it not be fair and just that her photo be released.
Basically we've all been exposed (pardon the pun) do the defendants photos over the last month and they will have suffered because of that, even now when found not guilty but this lady doesn't have to show her face

Is this what equality is in today's world?
She could have (and maybe she has anyway) ruined these guys lives with her allegations yet not many knows her name or what she looks like

That's a bizarre take. Why would you want, or need, to have her name and face publicised? As some sort of punishment?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: SLIGONIAN on March 28, 2018, 06:31:10 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZYp5ZrWkAUEMn7.jpg)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 28, 2018, 06:32:21 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 28, 2018, 06:16:37 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on March 28, 2018, 06:10:04 PM
I've not been following this thread and only read this page but now they were found not guilty should it not be fair and just that her photo be released.
Basically we've all been exposed (pardon the pun) do the defendants photos over the last month and they will have suffered because of that, even now when found not guilty but this lady doesn't have to show her face

Is this what equality is in today's world?
She could have (and maybe she has anyway) ruined these guys lives with her allegations yet not many knows her name or what she looks like

Crazy.

I suppose it's only saying what many others are thinking but know better than to say. We've a long way to go as a society that genuinely treats people equally.

I shouldn't waste my time but here goes an attempt at explanation:

A few things on the anonymity (1) if someone is charged with a crime their anonymity is usually not protected unless it is a crime of a sexual nature. The reason their anonymity is preserved in cases of this nature is to protect the alleged victim. She was the person that had a complaint. While her name hasn't been published I am sure it's widely known at this stage. (2) the defendants fame may have helped their case. (3) keeping their anonymity given their high profile jobs and the nature of them (for PJ and SO) was going to mean an elaborate tissue of lies that no one would believe. It was necessary.

While they have been found not guilty their actions that night, by their own admission, were nothing to be proud of. At best, they put themselves in a position where something like this could occur either through their alcohol abuse, sexual activities and text/comments to each other. In the eyes of the law they may be innocent but they brought this on themselves to at least a certain degree.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 06:34:53 PM
I see Luke Rossiter who plays for Drogheda United is in bother too.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 06:42:38 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on March 28, 2018, 06:31:10 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZYp5ZrWkAUEMn7.jpg)

This is true, but based on the very quick decision, and the unanimity of it, it had to be in the lower categories there.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rich Ricci on March 28, 2018, 06:48:01 PM
Would like to see Jackson and Olding back playing for Ulster/Ireland again at some point. Whilst I take on board all the points about the difference between being found not guilty and innocence they ultimately have to be treated as innocent.

Some of the feminists on twitter are laughable. Anyone who refers to the not guilty verdict is a rape apologist.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 06:56:13 PM
Holy smokes, they are holding solidarity rallies in Belfast, dublin and Limerick tomorrow, that has to be a joke?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 06:57:48 PM
200 pages.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 07:01:20 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 06:05:04 PM
This case should never have come to court after the mess the police made of the girl's interview. If they'd asked her the right questions it most likely would have been dropped there and then anyway. The verdict couldn't have been reached much faster given there were 4 defendants. It strongly suggests that reasonable doubt didn't come into it.

For the Police to investigate this allegation properly they needed to ask her the questions the defence asked her to clear up any ambiguities.
The fact that they didn't shows how emasculated they become and were afraid of being accused  by the feminist of not treating alleged rapevictims sympathetically
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: BennyCake on March 28, 2018, 07:02:02 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 06:56:13 PM
Holy smokes, they are holding solidarity rallies in Belfast, dublin and Limerick tomorrow, that has to be a joke?

Solidarity for who?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on March 28, 2018, 07:03:36 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 28, 2018, 07:02:02 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 06:56:13 PM
Holy smokes, they are holding solidarity rallies in Belfast, dublin and Limerick tomorrow, that has to be a joke?

Solidarity for who?

Surely someone could represent us at one of these. A wee poster "Gaaboard stands with you #200pages" could be rustled up
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 07:03:59 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 06:56:13 PM
Holy smokes, they are holding solidarity rallies in Belfast, dublin and Limerick tomorrow, that has to be a joke?

So they won't be able to attend the "Rose West is innocent" rally so.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 07:04:53 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 28, 2018, 07:02:02 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 06:56:13 PM
Holy smokes, they are holding solidarity rallies in Belfast, dublin and Limerick tomorrow, that has to be a joke?

Solidarity for who?

#ibelieveher
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:08:30 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 07:04:53 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 28, 2018, 07:02:02 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 06:56:13 PM
Holy smokes, they are holding solidarity rallies in Belfast, dublin and Limerick tomorrow, that has to be a joke?

Solidarity for who?

#ibelieveher

Cute. The glad-handing from the other side is just as bad.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: BennyCake on March 28, 2018, 07:09:31 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 07:04:53 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 28, 2018, 07:02:02 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 06:56:13 PM
Holy smokes, they are holding solidarity rallies in Belfast, dublin and Limerick tomorrow, that has to be a joke?

Solidarity for who?

#ibelieveher

Oh sweet Jesus   ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 28, 2018, 07:10:14 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on March 28, 2018, 06:10:04 PM
I've not been following this thread and only read this page but now they were found not guilty should it not be fair and just that her photo be released.
Basically we've all been exposed (pardon the pun) do the defendants photos over the last month and they will have suffered because of that, even now when found not guilty but this lady doesn't have to show her face

Is this what equality is in today's world?
She could have (and maybe she has anyway) ruined these guys lives with her allegations yet not many knows her name or what she looks like

It hasn't been proven that she lied. They were unable to be proven guilty not proven innocent.

If there is reasonable doubt then you can't send people to jail. That is really all this case has illustrated and I don't think anyone is any the wiser as to whether a rape took place.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:08:30 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 07:04:53 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 28, 2018, 07:02:02 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 06:56:13 PM
Holy smokes, they are holding solidarity rallies in Belfast, dublin and Limerick tomorrow, that has to be a joke?

Solidarity for who?

#ibelieveher

Cute. The glad-handing from the other side is just as bad.

Do you not support the movement seeing as you do believe her?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 07:13:17 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 06:56:13 PM
Holy smokes, they are holding solidarity rallies in Belfast, dublin and Limerick tomorrow, that has to be a joke?
And Galway.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:17:03 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:08:30 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 07:04:53 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 28, 2018, 07:02:02 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 06:56:13 PM
Holy smokes, they are holding solidarity rallies in Belfast, dublin and Limerick tomorrow, that has to be a joke?

Solidarity for who?

#ibelieveher

Cute. The glad-handing from the other side is just as bad.

Do you not support the movement seeing as you do believe her?

I believe her but I don't support hysterically protesting the court's decision. Legally and based on the judge's directions the jury carried out their jobs.

That said, this case highlighted that the way rape cases are tried has some serious flaws and under a better and fairer system a different result would have been possible. If they're protesting the system rather than the decision I'd have more respect for the sentiment.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 07:19:35 PM
I have no problem with them protesting the way in which the complainant was treated, or the fact that the trial was so public.

I do have a problem if they are saying the jury got it wrong.

And I'm not impressed with the sentiment which seems to be out there. Either #ibelieveher or else you are an apologist for rape and a misogynistic pig.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 07:22:53 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:17:03 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:08:30 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 07:04:53 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 28, 2018, 07:02:02 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 06:56:13 PM
Holy smokes, they are holding solidarity rallies in Belfast, dublin and Limerick tomorrow, that has to be a joke?

Solidarity for who?

#ibelieveher

Cute. The glad-handing from the other side is just as bad.

Do you not support the movement seeing as you do believe her?

I believe her but I don't support hysterically protesting the court's decision. Legally and based on the judge's directions the jury carried out their jobs.

That said, this case highlighted that the way rape cases are tried has some serious flaws and under a better and fairer system a different result would have been possible. If they're protesting the system rather than the decision I'd have more respect for the sentiment.
A trial needs to be fair to all parties not the complainant. Are you advocating a lower bar?

The fact is all parties had 2 months to present their case yet within 4 hours the defendants were found unanimously not guilty. It's pretty clear the complainants case wasn't close to the high bar.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 07:23:53 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 07:19:35 PM
I have no problem with them protesting the way in which the complainant was treated, or the fact that the trial was so public.

I do have a problem if they are saying the jury got it wrong.

And I'm not impressed with the sentiment which seems to be out there. Either #ibelieveher or else you are an apologist for rape and a misogynistic pig.
Twitter isn't the place for reasoned debate.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 07:24:39 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 07:23:53 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 07:19:35 PM
I have no problem with them protesting the way in which the complainant was treated, or the fact that the trial was so public.

I do have a problem if they are saying the jury got it wrong.

And I'm not impressed with the sentiment which seems to be out there. Either #ibelieveher or else you are an apologist for rape and a misogynistic pig.
Twitter isn't the place for reasoned debate.

You got that right.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:26:46 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 07:22:53 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:17:03 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:08:30 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 07:04:53 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 28, 2018, 07:02:02 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 06:56:13 PM
Holy smokes, they are holding solidarity rallies in Belfast, dublin and Limerick tomorrow, that has to be a joke?

Solidarity for who?

#ibelieveher

Cute. The glad-handing from the other side is just as bad.

Do you not support the movement seeing as you do believe her?

I believe her but I don't support hysterically protesting the court's decision. Legally and based on the judge's directions the jury carried out their jobs.

That said, this case highlighted that the way rape cases are tried has some serious flaws and under a better and fairer system a different result would have been possible. If they're protesting the system rather than the decision I'd have more respect for the sentiment.
A trial needs to be fair to all parties not the complainant. Are you advocating a lower bar?

The fact is all parties had 2 months to present their case yet within 4 hours the defendants were found unanimously not guilty. It's pretty clear the complainants case wasn't close to the high bar.

I don't think a system where the women is left on the  stand for six days and has her underwear paraded to the court is particularly fair to the complainant or even the rendering of justice, Tony.

Rape trials are different to many other criminal trials so try to apply the same logic as other types of criminal cases to it leads to these sorts of debacles. Unless the rape is exceedingly obvious (it rarely is), the preparator will get off scott free. That's not a society I'm comfortable supporting.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 07:27:55 PM
As a matter of interest, do we have the stats for successful prosecution of rape cases brought to trial?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 07:28:05 PM
Now they're spreading fake tweets from jackson where he boasts about the verdict. And people are believing it as genuine! I am done with social media. It's bad for your health.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 07:30:06 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 07:27:55 PM
As a matter of interest, do we have the stats for successful prosecution of rape cases brought to trial?

I think in England and Wales it's around 12% or so.  Don't know about Ireland.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 07:27:55 PM
As a matter of interest, do we have the stats for successful prosecution of rape cases brought to trial?

Those statistics wouldn't even include those not brought to trial, nevermind the many more which are never reported in the first place. And I think anyone who is being honest will admit the vast majority of those women are not lying about being raped.

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 07:34:55 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 07:27:55 PM
As a matter of interest, do we have the stats for successful prosecution of rape cases brought to trial?

Those statistics wouldn't even include those not brought to trial, nevermind the many more which are never reported in the first place. And I think anyone who is being honest will admit the vast majority of those women are not lying about being raped.

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

Yeah, I know. I'm specifically wondering about the percentage of convictions where the DPP has decided there is evidence enough to prosecute.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 07:43:27 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 07:30:06 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 07:27:55 PM
As a matter of interest, do we have the stats for successful prosecution of rape cases brought to trial?

I think in England and Wales it's around 12% or so.  Don't know about Ireland.

Sorry that's not right, I think that's reported rapes not those that actually go to trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 07:48:12 PM
In answer to the earlier questions about costs, a successful defendant can apply for costs but it is a very high hurdle to get over. From memory the test is that there was no reasonable prospect of success. It's extremely rare for it to be awarded in NI. Given that this trial got over halfway I wouldn't expect them to be successful were an application to be made.


As to the not guilty/innocent debate. The decision was technically not guilty. No decision of innocence exists so it would be impossible for these men to be proven innocence. That said BCB remains correct they must be considered innocent until proven otherwise (even to the civil standard).

I find it very interesting that Olding had been charged with vaginal rape and that hadn't been amended before the arraignment. But that's the nerd in me.

As to whether or not she lied it appears obvious to me that the jury simply didn't believe her about McIlroy as I can't see any other way they could have arrived at that decision.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 07:27:55 PM
As a matter of interest, do we have the stats for successful prosecution of rape cases brought to trial?

Those statistics wouldn't even include those not brought to trial, nevermind the many more which are never reported in the first place. And I think anyone who is being honest will admit the vast majority of those women are not lying about being raped.

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.
The verdict was a victory for justice. The police behaved like the rape crisis centre and took everything the girl said at face value. No mention of DF or taking her own top off in her interview for the love of God and you wanted a conviction. The CPS compounded the error and brought a case to court that ruined numerous lives and hadn't a notion of being successful. A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:52:56 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 07:27:55 PM
As a matter of interest, do we have the stats for successful prosecution of rape cases brought to trial?

Those statistics wouldn't even include those not brought to trial, nevermind the many more which are never reported in the first place. And I think anyone who is being honest will admit the vast majority of those women are not lying about being raped.

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.
Today was a victory for justice. The police behaved like the rape crisis centre and took everything the girl said at face value. No mention of DF or taking her own top off in her interview for the love of God and you wanted a conviction. The CPS compounded the error and brought a case to court that ruined numerous lives and hadn't a notion of being successful. A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.

Not surprised you're still a twat.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on March 28, 2018, 07:57:44 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 07:43:27 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 28, 2018, 07:30:06 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 07:27:55 PM
As a matter of interest, do we have the stats for successful prosecution of rape cases brought to trial?

I think in England and Wales it's around 12% or so.  Don't know about Ireland.

Sorry that's not right, I think that's reported rapes not those that actually go to trial.
It's closer to a 60% success rate for the CPS.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 28, 2018, 08:11:44 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:26:46 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 07:22:53 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:17:03 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:08:30 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 07:04:53 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on March 28, 2018, 07:02:02 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on March 28, 2018, 06:56:13 PM
Holy smokes, they are holding solidarity rallies in Belfast, dublin and Limerick tomorrow, that has to be a joke?

Solidarity for who?

#ibelieveher

Cute. The glad-handing from the other side is just as bad.

Do you not support the movement seeing as you do believe her?

I believe her but I don't support hysterically protesting the court's decision. Legally and based on the judge's directions the jury carried out their jobs.

That said, this case highlighted that the way rape cases are tried has some serious flaws and under a better and fairer system a different result would have been possible. If they're protesting the system rather than the decision I'd have more respect for the sentiment.
A trial needs to be fair to all parties not the complainant. Are you advocating a lower bar?

The fact is all parties had 2 months to present their case yet within 4 hours the defendants were found unanimously not guilty. It's pretty clear the complainants case wasn't close to the high bar.

I don't think a system where the women is left on the  stand for six days and has her underwear paraded to the court is particularly fair to the complainant or even the rendering of justice, Tony.

Rape trials are different to many other criminal trials so try to apply the same logic as other types of criminal cases to it leads to these sorts of debacles. Unless the rape is exceedingly obvious (it rarely is), the preparator will get off scott free. That's not a society I'm comfortable supporting.

You have the option of returning to the mother ship if you don't like it here
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:37:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:40:33 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.
OJ Simpson was acquitted in an hour.

Presumably you think that was as clear cut as it gets too.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 08:46:46 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:37:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.

And the ying to their yang are the women who use a verdict they disagree with to tar all men as rapists or rape apologists, and despite not being within an asses roar of the courtroom feel qualified to rubbish the jury's opinion.

Twitter, on a topic like this, is poison.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 08:48:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:37:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.



Where are they and who are they? I'd say the vast majority on here felt this was a horrible case and so many things were wrong about that night..

As for the #ibelieveher crowd, they also believe in aliens, earth is flat and the queen is a reptile (last might be true ;) )

The jury, not us seen, heard evidence and even visited the crime scene... hours of testimonies and questions, weeks of  court time plus direction from a judge far more up in the ways of law that is, and they came to a decision very quickly..

It goes to show actually how much was reported, to have it fairly evenly split (based on the poll here) that we actually knew fcuk all about the case. Cause if we did then most of, if not all would have voted to say not guilty... and we'd be sitting on 20 pages

Social media getting in the way of the facts as per usual
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 28, 2018, 08:49:49 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 08:46:46 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:37:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.

And the ying to their yang are the women who use a verdict they disagree with to tar all men as rapists or rape apologists, and despite not being within an asses roar of the courtroom feel qualified to rubbish the jury's opinion.

Twitter, on a topic like this, is poison.
Twitter doesn't work with anything that is polarising such as rape, Orange marches, GOP vs Dems etc
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 08:52:20 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:40:33 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.
OJ Simpson was acquitted in an hour.

Presumably you think that was as clear cut as it gets too.

If the glove doesn't fit, you have to acquit
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 08:53:12 PM
Anything emotive at all.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Therealdonald on March 28, 2018, 08:55:07 PM
I think justice was served.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 28, 2018, 08:59:18 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 08:53:12 PM
Anything emotive at all.
Yeah. Plus it is a very polarised time as well.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 09:06:00 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 08:48:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:37:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.



Where are they and who are they? I'd say the vast majority on here felt this was a horrible case and so many things were wrong about that night..

As for the #ibelieveher crowd, they also believe in aliens, earth is flat and the queen is a reptile (last might be true ;) )

The jury, not us seen, heard evidence and even visited the crime scene... hours of testimonies and questions, weeks of  court time plus direction from a judge far more up in the ways of law that is, and they came to a decision very quickly..

It goes to show actually how much was reported, to have it fairly evenly split (based on the poll here) that we actually knew fcuk all about the case. Cause if we did then most of, if not all would have voted to say not guilty... and we'd be sitting on 20 pages

Social media getting in the way of the facts as per usual

Have a wee gander on Twitter there and see what you can come up with.

And do get back to me on my points about what the QC implied.

Asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" is not categorically not consent.

Lack of screaming or fight reaction is categorically not consent.

Defence QC or not, Brendan Kelly implied both of those those things imply consent.

They categorically don't.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 09:12:43 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 08:46:46 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:37:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.

And the ying to their yang are the women who use a verdict they disagree with to tar all men as rapists or rape apologists, and despite not being within an asses roar of the courtroom feel qualified to rubbish the jury's opinion.

Twitter, on a topic like this, is poison.

But there are a lot of rape apologists out there. Gary Walsh is one. Luke Rossiter of Drogheda United is one. George Hook is one. We know Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen is one because he believes there is no such thing as spousal rape (Hook stated this on the national airwaves too).

Pointing that out is more than legitimate - these views deserve to be exposed for what they are.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:13:56 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 09:06:00 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 08:48:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:37:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.



Where are they and who are they? I'd say the vast majority on here felt this was a horrible case and so many things were wrong about that night..

As for the #ibelieveher crowd, they also believe in aliens, earth is flat and the queen is a reptile (last might be true ;) )

The jury, not us seen, heard evidence and even visited the crime scene... hours of testimonies and questions, weeks of  court time plus direction from a judge far more up in the ways of law that is, and they came to a decision very quickly..

It goes to show actually how much was reported, to have it fairly evenly split (based on the poll here) that we actually knew fcuk all about the case. Cause if we did then most of, if not all would have voted to say not guilty... and we'd be sitting on 20 pages

Social media getting in the way of the facts as per usual

Have a wee gander on Twitter there and see what you can come up with.

And do get back to me on my points about what the QC implied.

Asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" is not categorically not consent.

Lack of screaming or fight reaction is categorically not consent.

Defence QC or not, Brendan Kelly implied both of those those things imply consent.

They categorically don't.
The QC is there to do a job, would you prefer him to just suit your narrative?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 09:14:10 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 07:28:05 PM
Now they're spreading fake tweets from jackson where he boasts about the verdict. And people are believing it as genuine! I am done with social media. It's bad for your health.

Who are "they"?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 28, 2018, 09:20:39 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 09:14:10 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 07:28:05 PM
Now they're spreading fake tweets from jackson where he boasts about the verdict. And people are believing it as genuine! I am done with social media. It's bad for your health.

Who are "they"?

Aye I just saw the tweet, people are mental
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 09:24:04 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:13:56 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 09:06:00 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 08:48:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:37:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.



Where are they and who are they? I'd say the vast majority on here felt this was a horrible case and so many things were wrong about that night..

As for the #ibelieveher crowd, they also believe in aliens, earth is flat and the queen is a reptile (last might be true ;) )

The jury, not us seen, heard evidence and even visited the crime scene... hours of testimonies and questions, weeks of  court time plus direction from a judge far more up in the ways of law that is, and they came to a decision very quickly..

It goes to show actually how much was reported, to have it fairly evenly split (based on the poll here) that we actually knew fcuk all about the case. Cause if we did then most of, if not all would have voted to say not guilty... and we'd be sitting on 20 pages

Social media getting in the way of the facts as per usual

Have a wee gander on Twitter there and see what you can come up with.

And do get back to me on my points about what the QC implied.

Asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" is not categorically not consent.

Lack of screaming or fight reaction is categorically not consent.

Defence QC or not, Brendan Kelly implied both of those those things imply consent.

They categorically don't.
The QC is there to do a job, would you prefer him to just suit your narrative?

That compliance or submission does not mean consent is not a narrative. It is a fact.

What Mr. Kelly did involved weaving tired old tropes which are untrue into a narrative.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on March 28, 2018, 09:29:39 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 08:46:46 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:37:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.

And the ying to their yang are the women who use a verdict they disagree with to tar all men as rapists or rape apologists, and despite not being within an asses roar of the courtroom feel qualified to rubbish the jury's opinion.

Twitter, on a topic like this, is poison.

+1
Some of the stuff I've read today from so cslled feminists is shocking and every moron with an account doing #ibelieveher without most if them having a notion what the evidence was. Personally I think th3se are a bunch of typical horrible rugby pricks but that doesn't make them rapists. A jury of men and women reached a unanimous verdict very quickly and thats the best system we have to determine innocent orbguilty
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.


A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:39:19 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.


A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up

Well if you're not sure that case is cast iron why would you go with it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 09:41:33 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 09:06:00 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 08:48:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:37:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.



Where are they and who are they? I'd say the vast majority on here felt this was a horrible case and so many things were wrong about that night..

As for the #ibelieveher crowd, they also believe in aliens, earth is flat and the queen is a reptile (last might be true ;) )

The jury, not us seen, heard evidence and even visited the crime scene... hours of testimonies and questions, weeks of  court time plus direction from a judge far more up in the ways of law that is, and they came to a decision very quickly..

It goes to show actually how much was reported, to have it fairly evenly split (based on the poll here) that we actually knew fcuk all about the case. Cause if we did then most of, if not all would have voted to say not guilty... and we'd be sitting on 20 pages

Social media getting in the way of the facts as per usual

Have a wee gander on Twitter there and see what you can come up with.

And do get back to me on my points about what the QC implied.

Asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" is not categorically not consent.

Lack of screaming or fight reaction is categorically not consent.

Defence QC or not, Brendan Kelly implied both of those those things imply consent.

They categorically don't.

I don't think he did and to suggest so is somewhat disingenuous. What he said when you read the whole transcript is that you can look at this as part of a bigger picture. Had this girl not been consenting would she have said at least use a condom. Had she not been consenting would she not have fought or screamed. He wasn't suggesting that simply by not doing anything she was consenting he was saying that as a whole her actions were those of someone who was consenting and had she not been consenting she would have behaved differently. Perfectly acceptable points to raise which were raised in cross examination and which the prosecution had ample opportunity to rebut.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:43:54 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 09:24:04 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:13:56 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 09:06:00 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 08:48:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:37:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.



Where are they and who are they? I'd say the vast majority on here felt this was a horrible case and so many things were wrong about that night..

As for the #ibelieveher crowd, they also believe in aliens, earth is flat and the queen is a reptile (last might be true ;) )

The jury, not us seen, heard evidence and even visited the crime scene... hours of testimonies and questions, weeks of  court time plus direction from a judge far more up in the ways of law that is, and they came to a decision very quickly..

It goes to show actually how much was reported, to have it fairly evenly split (based on the poll here) that we actually knew fcuk all about the case. Cause if we did then most of, if not all would have voted to say not guilty... and we'd be sitting on 20 pages

Social media getting in the way of the facts as per usual

Have a wee gander on Twitter there and see what you can come up with.

And do get back to me on my points about what the QC implied.

Asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" is not categorically not consent.

Lack of screaming or fight reaction is categorically not consent.

Defence QC or not, Brendan Kelly implied both of those those things imply consent.

They categorically don't.
The QC is there to do a job, would you prefer him to just suit your narrative?

That compliance or submission does not mean consent is not a narrative. It is a fact.

What Mr. Kelly did involved weaving tired old tropes which are untrue into a narrative.

So what Kelly said (according to the small bits you heard online, as you haven't been at the case) was the reason the Jury (who where there) took under 4 hours for a 9 week trial to come to the decision they did?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:45:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:39:19 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.


A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up

Well if you're not sure that case is cast iron why would you go with it?

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution?  :o
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:47:20 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:45:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:39:19 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.


A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up

Well if you're not sure that case is cast iron why would you go with it?

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution?  :o

So you'd much prefer the 'well he could be guilty, sure let's give it a go' type cases?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:50:06 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:47:20 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:45:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:39:19 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.


A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up

Well if you're not sure that case is cast iron why would you go with it?

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution?  :o

So you'd much prefer the 'well he could be guilty, sure let's give it a go' type cases?

No need to try to change the parameters of what I said.

Do I think that only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution? Absolutely not. Do you?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 10:00:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:47:20 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:45:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:39:19 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.


A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up

Well if you're not sure that case is cast iron why would you go with it?

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution?  :o

So you'd much prefer the 'well he could be guilty, sure let's give it a go' type cases?

Do you actually know what the justice system is supposed to do?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 10:04:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:43:54 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 09:24:04 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:13:56 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 09:06:00 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 08:48:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:37:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 07:30:45 PM

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.



Where are they and who are they? I'd say the vast majority on here felt this was a horrible case and so many things were wrong about that night..

As for the #ibelieveher crowd, they also believe in aliens, earth is flat and the queen is a reptile (last might be true ;) )

The jury, not us seen, heard evidence and even visited the crime scene... hours of testimonies and questions, weeks of  court time plus direction from a judge far more up in the ways of law that is, and they came to a decision very quickly..

It goes to show actually how much was reported, to have it fairly evenly split (based on the poll here) that we actually knew fcuk all about the case. Cause if we did then most of, if not all would have voted to say not guilty... and we'd be sitting on 20 pages

Social media getting in the way of the facts as per usual

Have a wee gander on Twitter there and see what you can come up with.

And do get back to me on my points about what the QC implied.

Asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" is not categorically not consent.

Lack of screaming or fight reaction is categorically not consent.

Defence QC or not, Brendan Kelly implied both of those those things imply consent.

They categorically don't.
The QC is there to do a job, would you prefer him to just suit your narrative?

That compliance or submission does not mean consent is not a narrative. It is a fact.

What Mr. Kelly did involved weaving tired old tropes which are untrue into a narrative.

So what Kelly said (according to the small bits you heard online, as you haven't been at the case) was the reason the Jury (who where there) took under 4 hours for a 9 week trial to come to the decision they did?

I'm not privy to the jury's reasons for what they decided.

What I do know is that Kelly's narrative implying that compliance means consent, that asking for a condom implies consent, that a victim's trauma and confusion in the hours afterwards amounts to deliberate lying, and that middle class women are uniquely abhorred by rape was a load of rot.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 10:07:59 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:50:06 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:47:20 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:45:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:39:19 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.


A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up

Well if you're not sure that case is cast iron why would you go with it?

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution?  :o

So you'd much prefer the 'well he could be guilty, sure let's give it a go' type cases?

No need to try to change the parameters of what I said.

Do I think that only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution? Absolutely not. Do you?

I'd much prefer a case has better evidence than he said she said.. a lot of people went to jail based on people's words rather than proper evidence over the years here during the troubles . Certainly over here we have seen cases going to court that should never have
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 10:09:11 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 10:00:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:47:20 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:45:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:39:19 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.


A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up

Well if you're not sure that case is cast iron why would you go with it?

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution?  :o

So you'd much prefer the 'well he could be guilty, sure let's give it a go' type cases?

Do you actually know what the justice system is supposed to do?

I'm not as smart as you when it comes to courts and justice systems  ;D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 10:17:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 10:07:59 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:50:06 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:47:20 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:45:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:39:19 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.


A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up

Well if you're not sure that case is cast iron why would you go with it?

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution?  :o

So you'd much prefer the 'well he could be guilty, sure let's give it a go' type cases?

No need to try to change the parameters of what I said.

Do I think that only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution? Absolutely not. Do you?

I'd much prefer a case has better evidence than he said she said.. a lot of people went to jail based on people's words rather than proper evidence over the years here during the troubles . Certainly over here we have seen cases going to court that should never have

You questioned me specifically on the point of cast iron cases but you don't seem to be willing to give your own opinion on it?

My original point was around comments that appear to question the validity of bringing a case based on the fact that the jury (unanimously) found the accused not guilty - I wouldn't agree with that stance.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Therealdonald on March 28, 2018, 10:20:56 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 10:00:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:47:20 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:45:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 09:39:19 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.


A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up

Well if you're not sure that case is cast iron why would you go with it?

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution?  :o

So you'd much prefer the 'well he could be guilty, sure let's give it a go' type cases?

Do you actually know what the justice system is supposed to do?

Better question is.... Is there anything you dont pretend to know Syf?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 10:21:53 PM
Great post Fionn.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on March 28, 2018, 10:42:08 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 10:21:53 PM
Great post Fionn.
+1. The hi jacking of this mostly by radical feminists is horrendous to watch. I nearly tweeted a reply to a handful of them but in the end I stopped myself. What could be gained by engaging with people like that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 10:46:40 PM
Out of curiosity, what's a radical feminist compared to busy a regular feminist? Like very feminist but not "feminazi"?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 10:47:27 PM
Quote from: Itchy on March 28, 2018, 10:42:08 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 10:21:53 PM
Great post Fionn.
+1. The hi jacking of this mostly by radical feminists is horrendous to watch. I nearly tweeted a reply to a handful of them but in the end I stopped myself. What could be gained by engaging with people like that.
Aye A definite exercise in futility. Leave them to it, this girl will be yesterday's news and #Repealthe8th will be back on.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 10:49:05 PM
Quote from: Itchy on March 28, 2018, 10:42:08 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 10:21:53 PM
Great post Fionn.
+1. The hi jacking of this mostly by radical feminists is horrendous to watch. I nearly tweeted a reply to a handful of them but in the end I stopped myself. What could be gained by engaging with people like that.

So we can add 'radical feminists' to your list of enemies (alongside Roscommon, Monaghan and the British) and we only have Russia in your friends column so far.

By the way, the reaction is hysterical in places but to describe everyone annoyed with the verdict as a 'radical femnist' demeans both them and the case itself. There's lots of very valid grievances to be had with the way this case was handled and how rape trials in general play out that don't mark out someone as a radical if they voice them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 10:50:01 PM
Fionn what is said as part of a trial like this is privileged and therefore immune from ridiculous shit like defamation etc. The worst about a case like this is that it encourages extremes to voice their opinions online and feel like they are valid. This case in my opinion is an example of the best and worst things about our justice system. It became abundantly clearer as the case progressed that the case was very weak due to the inconsistency in the IPs story. In my opinion this was due in the first place to a very or police investigation. I honestly believe if they had done a better job then either there would have been a stronger case or no trial at all. I think they had a slapdash approach to evidence gathering.

No matter what there are 5 lives that have been put through hell, never mind the extended families. Whatever about your feelings about the defendants and their actions they are no different now then a lot of other lads who have been involved in seedy sex. We can sit on our moral high ground and tut tut but one thing I can tell you is that this type of behaviour is reflective of a lot of young people's behaviour in recent years. The proliferation of drink and recreational drugs along with a significantly higher level of disposable income available to 20-30 year olds has seen a shift in the moral compass. It may not mean there are rapes week in week out but there's a helluva lot of stuff going on
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: HiMucker on March 28, 2018, 10:54:58 PM
Sad case.  I honestly feel from what I have read, that the girl is telling the truth, and that she sill feel like this a horrible miscarriage of justice.  Equally I think the fellas in all probability didnt think they were doing anything wrong.  I agree with what AZ said in an earlier post, that she was probably an after thought to them.  The jury in all likelihood concluded that they reasonably believed she was consenting.  You have to accept their conclusion.  In my opinion the least likely scenario was that she was lying, or going along with it to save face. 
Honest question.  Does anyone think that the exact same trial in say 30 years time would have a different outcome?  The reason I ask is that as time goes on certain behaviours are becoming less and less socially acceptable.  Before anyone mentions it I know that the vast majority on here think that the fellas acted like arseholes already.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 28, 2018, 10:59:09 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on March 28, 2018, 10:12:50 PM
My €0.02

1. The returning of all verdicts of "not guilty"does not mean that the defendants were "proved innocent" because in the NI justice system (and pretty much all law systems based on common law) all defendants are given the presumption of innocence until proven or presumed otherwise in a court's judgement implying that they are not. So the defendants in question walked into court as innocent in the eyes of the law and walked out with nothing having changed for them in that regard.

2. The returning of all verdicts of "not guilty" does not mean necessarily that the jury felt the IP was lying. She might have, but the IP was not on trial here. The prosecution case here is for them to show, beyond "reasonable doubt", that the incident in question fulfilled the lawful definition of rape, sexual assault, perverting the course of justice etc. The IP in question probably believed that those who were accused had committed rape on her and likely still believes that to be the case, but the jury doesn't believe that the legal definition of rape has been reached in this case.

3. A reminder once again, the IP was not on trial. The suggestion that she should now be sued by the defendants for defamation is quite a silly one. David McKeown and BCB1 will likely know this better than I do, but I don't think you can defame, libel or slander someone in a courtroom between the defence and prosecution parties. It's possible that an IP in such a case like this could be charged after the trial for wasting police time, perjury etc. if during the course of the trial evidence comes to light that the accuser is clearly lying but from the limited amount of info I've seen from this trial there is nothing to suggest any of this occoured, nor is there any apparent public interest to do so.

4. Concerning the length of interrogation of the IP, it's the case that each of the four defendants teams' had the right to ask valid questions each concerning the charges that their client was up against, as opposed to just the one prosecution team interviewing each of the defendants so it's not a big surprise it went on for her as long as it did. As for some of the personal and intimate details of the IP being talked about or displayed in court, it is not only the right but also the best practice that the jury is informed as much as possible on the relevant details of the case in question and that with the presumption of innocence placed on the defendants it is up to the prosecution to state their case that they believe that the defendant is guilty, not for the defence to show that their party is innocent. By allowing certain questions to the IP that are possibly relevant to the case be made off-limits from being asked by the defence, potential evidence is being witheld and the risk of a miscarriage of justice is elevated, and avoiding a miscarriage of justice is as important as ensuring justice is delivered. I've not been in such a position but I have serious doubts that being questioned in court when you are party seeking redress is a pleasent experience most of the time, and that those cases which involve bodily harm or assault are among the hardest to cope with.

5. With all the fallout over the verdict, one thing that seem to be a common theme especially among #ibelieveher supporters (radfems especially) is that rape is being projected as something that only women can fall victim of, which is clearly untrue. At least in NI, you don't need to be born with a vagina, uterus & ovaries to be a victim of rape and to imply otherwise is to be dishonest. While statistics about female rape prosecutions in much of the western world are not known to have high levels of such crimes resulting in a successful prosecution, from my anecdotal experience (so certainly open to question) male rape victims suffer a bigger social stigma than female rape victims. Despite the evidence presented in court that the accused behaved as if they were Steve Stifler from American Pie, that in itself isn't a crime and the case has become a cause celebre of different social cultural movements in Ireland with sexism in both forms i.e. misogyny and misandry. It's been hijacked by numerous people with their own agendas - I really don't like using this term as it gets so easily thrown about by utter scumbags and others whom should know better, but "virtue signalling" is definitely playing a part here.

6. I learned a long, long time ago that on social media like Twitter, Facebook etc. that reasonable discussion on political and judicial issues are almost impossible to conduct. And that goes for many different political leanings across the board wherever it is from elements of feminism (most certainly not all feminists, but a loud minority) that blame every single thing on patriarchy, real or assumed, hardcore socialists and anarchists vowing to smash the state, neo-nazi alt-right arseholes whom are c*nts in general, MGTOW and "mens rights" movements that use the term to less support practical issues involving men in society but more as a cover for their hyper misogyny, professional conspiracy theorists and their followers/fellow travellers whom take issues of genuine concern over authority and industry and blow them up to suit their loony agendas and rasing their public profile & coining it while doing so (can also be accused against the likes of the SWP) etc. etc. basically concensus politics is falling apart with idealogical purity being demanded and the order of the day. Stop the world, I think I might just want to get the feck off.

Just a few points I would make.

1. You are quite correct about the defamation. Allegations made in criminal trials and the reporting of same are protected speech and not amenable to defamation litigation.

2. As I have stressed from the start the jury could have 100% believed the complaint and still acquitted 3 of the 4 defendants. I don't see a way that they could have believed her and not convicted McIlroy though. Unlike Olding and Jackson he didn't have the protection of a reasonable belief in consent. I therefore don't think it's an unfair assertion to say that the jury did not believe the complaint. At least in terms of the evidence she gave against McIlroy.

3. Rape trials are not like other trials. Special rules do apply about admissibility of evidence, who can appear, what questions can and can not be asked etc. Allowances are made for the type of cases it is but these can only go so far otherwise we run the risk of going too far.

4. As the law stands currently rape can only be committed by a man in Northern Ireland
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 11:11:13 PM
I have to say lads in the >200 pages of this thread there has been a awful lot of oul pish posted, but David and BCB have been invaluable and their posts show that you have to sift through a lot the detritus to get that nugget of gold. There's one in the keg for youse. The thread in general shows there is life in the gaaboard after a low key few years.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 28, 2018, 11:22:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 11:11:13 PM
I have to say lads in the >200 pages of this thread there has been a awful lot of oul pish posted, but David and BCB have been invaluable and their posts show that you have to sift through a lot the detritus to get that nugget of gold. There's one in the keg for youse. The thread in general shows there is life in the gaaboard after a low key few years.

I'd say BC1 would have that whole keg to himself!  ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on March 28, 2018, 11:27:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 10:49:05 PM
Quote from: Itchy on March 28, 2018, 10:42:08 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 10:21:53 PM
Great post Fionn.
+1. The hi jacking of this mostly by radical feminists is horrendous to watch. I nearly tweeted a reply to a handful of them but in the end I stopped myself. What could be gained by engaging with people like that.

So we can add 'radical feminists' to your list of enemies (alongside Roscommon, Monaghan and the British) and we only have Russia in your friends column so far.

By the way, the reaction is hysterical in places but to describe everyone annoyed with the verdict as a 'radical femnist' demeans both them and the case itself. There's lots of very valid grievances to be had with the way this case was handled and how rape trials in general play out that don't mark out someone as a radical if they voice them.

f**k off you complete idiot.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 11:32:14 PM
Quote from: Itchy on March 28, 2018, 11:27:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 10:49:05 PM
Quote from: Itchy on March 28, 2018, 10:42:08 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 10:21:53 PM
Great post Fionn.
+1. The hi jacking of this mostly by radical feminists is horrendous to watch. I nearly tweeted a reply to a handful of them but in the end I stopped myself. What could be gained by engaging with people like that.

So we can add 'radical feminists' to your list of enemies (alongside Roscommon, Monaghan and the British) and we only have Russia in your friends column so far.

By the way, the reaction is hysterical in places but to describe everyone annoyed with the verdict as a 'radical femnist' demeans both them and the case itself. There's lots of very valid grievances to be had with the way this case was handled and how rape trials in general play out that don't mark out someone as a radical if they voice them.

f**k off you complete idiot.

Typical response from you when called on your shiîte.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on March 28, 2018, 11:43:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 11:32:14 PM
Quote from: Itchy on March 28, 2018, 11:27:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 28, 2018, 10:49:05 PM
Quote from: Itchy on March 28, 2018, 10:42:08 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 28, 2018, 10:21:53 PM
Great post Fionn.
+1. The hi jacking of this mostly by radical feminists is horrendous to watch. I nearly tweeted a reply to a handful of them but in the end I stopped myself. What could be gained by engaging with people like that.

So we can add 'radical feminists' to your list of enemies (alongside Roscommon, Monaghan and the British) and we only have Russia in your friends column so far.

By the way, the reaction is hysterical in places but to describe everyone annoyed with the verdict as a 'radical femnist' demeans both them and the case itself. There's lots of very valid grievances to be had with the way this case was handled and how rape trials in general play out that don't mark out someone as a radical if they voice them.

f**k off you complete idiot.

Typical response from you when called on your shiîte.

and when you are called out on your shite (countless times in this thread) you just ignore the post... ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mayo4Sam on March 28, 2018, 11:45:32 PM
They mentioned this case on the radio at some stage today so I looked it up

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/man-jailed-for-raping-woman-over-refusal-to-wear-condom-1.3425186?mode=amp

This is literally something that could have happened to anyone. Apparently implied consent doesn't constitute consent. Basically you can be getting down and dirty but if she doesn't specifically say it's ok it can be called rape.

This poor bastard is getting two years in jail
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 11:53:36 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 28, 2018, 11:45:32 PM
They mentioned this case on the radio at some stage today so I looked it up

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/man-jailed-for-raping-woman-over-refusal-to-wear-condom-1.3425186?mode=amp

This is literally something that could have happened to anyone. Apparently implied consent doesn't constitute consent. Basically you can be getting down and dirty but if she doesn't specifically say it's ok it can be called rape.

This poor b**tard is getting two years in jail

What's wrong there? No unprotected sex was a clear rule between the parties and he penetrated her without wearing a condom. Pretty black and white in that case, no?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on March 28, 2018, 11:53:44 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on March 28, 2018, 10:12:50 PM


3. A reminder once again, the IP was not on trial. The suggestion that she should now be sued by the defendants for defamation is quite a silly one. David McKeown and BCB1 will likely know this better than I do, but I don't think you can defame, libel or slander someone in a courtroom between the defence and prosecution parties. It's possible that an IP in such a case like this could be charged after the trial for wasting police time, perjury etc. if during the course of the trial evidence comes to light that the accuser is clearly lying but from the limited amount of info I've seen from this trial there is nothing to suggest any of this occoured, nor is there any apparent public interest to do so.

On that part, I thought it was obvious that she did not take the case against the defendants, the CPS did. She had no responsibility with that decision. She gave her statement to the police, she made her accusations,  she gave herself to be examined verbally, physically and emotionally, by police, a counselor and a medic. The investigation team handed all the evidence to the CPS and they decided to prosecute after testing the quality of the evidence. She had no say in that decision except for the obvious, that she would have to be prepared to give evidence in court.
Afaia her testimony in court was consistent  enough at least well within the boundaries, and she held on to her account against 4 different legal teams. She has nothing to answer for.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 11:56:46 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 28, 2018, 11:53:44 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on March 28, 2018, 10:12:50 PM


3. A reminder once again, the IP was not on trial. The suggestion that she should now be sued by the defendants for defamation is quite a silly one. David McKeown and BCB1 will likely know this better than I do, but I don't think you can defame, libel or slander someone in a courtroom between the defence and prosecution parties. It's possible that an IP in such a case like this could be charged after the trial for wasting police time, perjury etc. if during the course of the trial evidence comes to light that the accuser is clearly lying but from the limited amount of info I've seen from this trial there is nothing to suggest any of this occoured, nor is there any apparent public interest to do so.

On that part, I thought it was obvious that she did not take the case against the defendants, the CPS did.

You would think so, wouldn't you? Based on the twitterverse today (and some neanderthals on this board) the concept of the state bringing the charges and prosecuting in a criminal case is not that well understood.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 29, 2018, 12:01:25 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 28, 2018, 11:45:32 PM
They mentioned this case on the radio at some stage today so I looked it up

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/man-jailed-for-raping-woman-over-refusal-to-wear-condom-1.3425186?mode=amp

This is literally something that could have happened to anyone. Apparently implied consent doesn't constitute consent. Basically you can be getting down and dirty but if she doesn't specifically say it's ok it can be called rape.

This poor b**tard is getting two years in jail

Cop yourself on for heavens sake! f**king ridiculous comment.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:15:10 AM
Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 29, 2018, 12:27:18 AM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on March 29, 2018, 12:14:34 AM
Quote from: Main Street on March 28, 2018, 11:53:44 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on March 28, 2018, 10:12:50 PM


3. A reminder once again, the IP was not on trial. The suggestion that she should now be sued by the defendants for defamation is quite a silly one. David McKeown and BCB1 will likely know this better than I do, but I don't think you can defame, libel or slander someone in a courtroom between the defence and prosecution parties. It's possible that an IP in such a case like this could be charged after the trial for wasting police time, perjury etc. if during the course of the trial evidence comes to light that the accuser is clearly lying but from the limited amount of info I've seen from this trial there is nothing to suggest any of this occoured, nor is there any apparent public interest to do so.

On that part, I thought it was obvious that she did not take the case against the defendants, the CPS did. She had no responsibility with that decision. She gave her statement to the police, she made her accusations,  she gave herself to be examined verbally, physically and emotionally, by police, a counselor and a medic. The investigation team handed all the evidence to the CPS and they decided to prosecute after testing the quality of the evidence. She had no say in that decision except for the obvious, that she would have to be prepared to give evidence in court.
Afaia her testimony in court was consistent  enough at least well within the boundaries, and she held on to her account against 4 different legal teams. She has nothing to answer for.
There seems to be an element that someone or some group within the PPSNI was very persuavive to the IP in getting her to testify. Not that she wasn't explicitly not going to so but rather she had doubts that it would be effective if reports earlier in the trial are correct. Obviously without her giving evidence in court the case against the defendants would almost certainly collapse very early. Agree that she hasn't anything to answer for.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think only the PPS can file for charges as a prosecuter in criminal cases in NI?

No technically private prosecutions can be brought but if they are the PPS must consider them and decide whether or not to take over the running of them. Also local councils and some government bodies bring their own criminal charges as well. For example fisheries bodies and coast guard.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Capt Pat on March 29, 2018, 12:41:35 AM
Jaysus 205 pages in and this thing still has legs. It is over, the verdict is in, time to move on to new and more interesting topics.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Aaron Boone on March 29, 2018, 01:03:49 AM
What's "IP" again?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 29, 2018, 01:05:39 AM
Injured party
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: moysider on March 29, 2018, 01:42:59 AM
Quote from: Capt Pat on March 29, 2018, 12:41:35 AM
Jaysus 205 pages in and this thing still has legs. It is over, the verdict is in, time to move on to new and more interesting topics.

Nah. This is huge. This forum is mostly male. Not reflective of general opinion out there.
The thing is, a jury is chosen from people like posters on this board. The defence choose  - in the South the defence dismiss people they don't fancy to be jurors. I expect the North not different in that respect?

If you took the opinions here as being a template for the jurors then there is no way that you could get convictions.

People on here that followed the case have been as well informed as the jurors. Press can only report what the jurors heard. So any nonsense that we were not there is ....... nonesense. The only thing we didnt get was body language under cross examination.

This is as big as Haughey, Casey, Dunne, Cleary, Flynn and Brian Lenihan's mature recollection. It's huge and will get bigger.

I didn't want to see those kids go to gaol but not comfortable about the whole process.

Unless a girl is dragged down a lane or into trees at knife point, kicking and screaming, prosecution are wasting their time. That is the message here.

I don't think that this was those lads first rodeo.

You look at reporting of rapes being very low. This wont help those stats. If anything, it's open season on young girls. She was only 19 at the time. Whatever the verdict, she was treated like no person should ever be.

I hope this story does not go away.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 02:16:56 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.


A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up
I said the case as it was handled should never have made it to court. Leaving aside my own personal views on the truthfulness of her claim for a moment, once the police failed to ask her the most basic of questions at the interview stage and her interview contained no mention of DF or her top it was over. No jury could safely convict after that.

Getting back to my own personal view, from the girl's texts the following morning she was clearly worried that she wouldn't be believed. She had to be thinking of the fact that another girl had walked in and thought that nothing was amiss and how this would look to the police. Yet she claimed she "forgot" to tell them about in an interview that lasted an hour and told her story from start to finish. She claimed DF's walking in was "secondary" in her mind but for a girl who was worried about being believed I'm flabbergasted that anyone is buying that. Some people seem determined to believe her though.  We had Magpie seanie saying on here a few days ago that for him there were no holes in the girl's story which really brought logic to a whole other dimension.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: moysider on March 29, 2018, 03:05:30 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 02:16:56 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.


A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up
I said the case as it was handled should never have made it to court. Leaving aside my own personal views on the truthfulness of her claim for a moment, once the police failed to ask her the most basic of questions at the interview stage and her interview contained no mention of DF or her top it was over. No jury could safely convict after that.

Getting back to my own personal view, from the girl's texts the following morning she was clearly worried that she wouldn't be believed. She had to be thinking of the fact that another girl had walked in and thought that nothing was amiss and how this would look to the police. Yet she claimed she "forgot" to tell them about in an interview that lasted an hour and told her story from start to finish. She claimed DF's walking in was "secondary" in her mind but for a girl who was worried about being believed I'm flabbergasted that anyone is buying that. Some people seem determined to believe her though.  We had Magpie seanie saying on here a few days ago that for him there were no holes in the girl's story which really brought logic to a whole other dimension.

Why are you trying to second guess what the girl said or thought? Of course she would be worried she would not believed! And she was right to think like that. The jury could not return a guilty verdict - no brainer, but she was badly abused by those lads and by the judicial process as well. The process is what it is and justice was served but while she got justice, she did not get a result she wanted. She was mad to go through the process.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 03:08:10 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:40:33 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.
OJ Simpson was acquitted in an hour.

Presumably you think that was as clear cut as it gets too.
The police botched this Sid. That is clear cut.

Fair enough if you believe she was raped. I must concede it's possible that's what happened just as you must concede it's possible that she lied. We weren't there so we'll never know for sure. What is not questionable is whether the investigation was carried out in a remotely unbiased or competent way. It wasn't and a conviction would have been unjust in those circumstances.

Apparently the OJ verdict took closer to four hours but I take your point. The jury were 100% right in Belfast though in coming to the only just verdict in the circumstances.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 03:12:51 AM
Quote from: moysider on March 29, 2018, 03:05:30 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 02:16:56 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.


A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up
I said the case as it was handled should never have made it to court. Leaving aside my own personal views on the truthfulness of her claim for a moment, once the police failed to ask her the most basic of questions at the interview stage and her interview contained no mention of DF or her top it was over. No jury could safely convict after that.

Getting back to my own personal view, from the girl's texts the following morning she was clearly worried that she wouldn't be believed. She had to be thinking of the fact that another girl had walked in and thought that nothing was amiss and how this would look to the police. Yet she claimed she "forgot" to tell them about in an interview that lasted an hour and told her story from start to finish. She claimed DF's walking in was "secondary" in her mind but for a girl who was worried about being believed I'm flabbergasted that anyone is buying that. Some people seem determined to believe her though.  We had Magpie seanie saying on here a few days ago that for him there were no holes in the girl's story which really brought logic to a whole other dimension.

Why are you trying to second guess what the girl said or thought? Of course she would be worried she would not believed! And she was right to think like that. The jury could not return a guilty verdict - no brainer, but she was badly abused by those lads and by the judicial process as well. The process is what it is and justice was served but while she got justice, she did not get a result she wanted. She was mad to go through the process.
If she had said she omitted to mention DF because she was afraid she wouldn't be believed I could buy that. She said she forgot and that DF walking in was secondary in her mind. For a girl who was so worried about being believed that doesn't remotely add up. Like the lads though, I genuinely hope she's let get on with her life. Like the lads, unfortunately, I'd doubt she will be.  The police and CPS have once again ruined a lot of lives here.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 29, 2018, 07:03:40 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:15:10 AM
Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him

The article you posted explicitly stated that they had clearly agreed, in advance, there would be no unprotected sex. They were fooling around a bit, as you say, and he penetrated her as you say. That is rape, clear as daylight. The fact you don't get that is appalling.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 29, 2018, 07:11:47 AM
Quote from: moysider on March 29, 2018, 01:42:59 AM
Quote from: Capt Pat on March 29, 2018, 12:41:35 AM
Jaysus 205 pages in and this thing still has legs. It is over, the verdict is in, time to move on to new and more interesting topics.

Nah. This is huge. This forum is mostly male. Not reflective of general opinion out there.
The thing is, a jury is chosen from people like posters on this board. The defence choose  - in the South the defence dismiss people they don't fancy to be jurors. I expect the North not different in that respect?

If you took the opinions here as being a template for the jurors then there is no way that you could get convictions.

People on here that followed the case have been as well informed as the jurors. Press can only report what the jurors heard. So any nonsense that we were not there is ....... nonesense. The only thing we didnt get was body language under cross examination.

This is as big as Haughey, Casey, Dunne, Cleary, Flynn and Brian Lenihan's mature recollection. It's huge and will get bigger.

I didn't want to see those kids go to gaol but not comfortable about the whole process.

Unless a girl is dragged down a lane or into trees at knife point, kicking and screaming, prosecution are wasting their time. That is the message here.

I don't think that this was those lads first rodeo.

You look at reporting of rapes being very low. This wont help those stats. If anything, it's open season on young girls. She was only 19 at the time. Whatever the verdict, she was treated like no person should ever be.

I hope this story does not go away.

Well that's just not true not true at all.

How can we be fully informed of this case from getting 240 characters every half an hour and a summary at the end of the day?

To say people following the case in the media are as well informed as the jury is just plain wrong!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 29, 2018, 07:21:00 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 03:12:51 AM
Quote from: moysider on March 29, 2018, 03:05:30 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 02:16:56 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.


A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up
I said the case as it was handled should never have made it to court. Leaving aside my own personal views on the truthfulness of her claim for a moment, once the police failed to ask her the most basic of questions at the interview stage and her interview contained no mention of DF or her top it was over. No jury could safely convict after that.

Getting back to my own personal view, from the girl's texts the following morning she was clearly worried that she wouldn't be believed. She had to be thinking of the fact that another girl had walked in and thought that nothing was amiss and how this would look to the police. Yet she claimed she "forgot" to tell them about in an interview that lasted an hour and told her story from start to finish. She claimed DF's walking in was "secondary" in her mind but for a girl who was worried about being believed I'm flabbergasted that anyone is buying that. Some people seem determined to believe her though.  We had Magpie seanie saying on here a few days ago that for him there were no holes in the girl's story which really brought logic to a whole other dimension.

Why are you trying to second guess what the girl said or thought? Of course she would be worried she would not believed! And she was right to think like that. The jury could not return a guilty verdict - no brainer, but she was badly abused by those lads and by the judicial process as well. The process is what it is and justice was served but while she got justice, she did not get a result she wanted. She was mad to go through the process.
If she had said she omitted to mention DF because she was afraid she wouldn't be believed I could buy that. She said she forgot and that DF walking in was secondary in her mind. For a girl who was so worried about being believed that doesn't remotely add up. Like the lads though, I genuinely hope she's let get on with her life. Like the lads, unfortunately, I'd doubt she will be.  The police and CPS have once again ruined a lot of lives here.

How did the celebrations go last night?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 29, 2018, 07:35:18 AM
Olding did at least acknowledge the trauma caused to the girl in his statement afterwards even if his perception of events was different to hers. They should all now be allowed to get on with their lives, you would like to think that lessons could be learned. Sadly they won't though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 29, 2018, 08:17:04 AM
Quote from: moysider on March 29, 2018, 01:42:59 AM
Quote from: Capt Pat on March 29, 2018, 12:41:35 AM
Jaysus 205 pages in and this thing still has legs. It is over, the verdict is in, time to move on to new and more interesting topics.

Nah. This is huge. This forum is mostly male. Not reflective of general opinion out there.
The thing is, a jury is chosen from people like posters on this board. The defence choose  - in the South the defence dismiss people they don't fancy to be jurors. I expect the North not different in that respect?

If you took the opinions here as being a template for the jurors then there is no way that you could get convictions.

People on here that followed the case have been as well informed as the jurors. Press can only report what the jurors heard. So any nonsense that we were not there is ....... nonesense. The only thing we didnt get was body language under cross examination.

This is as big as Haughey, Casey, Dunne, Cleary, Flynn and Brian Lenihan's mature recollection. It's huge and will get bigger.

I didn't want to see those kids go to gaol but not comfortable about the whole process.

Unless a girl is dragged down a lane or into trees at knife point, kicking and screaming, prosecution are wasting their time. That is the message here.

I don't think that this was those lads first rodeo.

You look at reporting of rapes being very low. This wont help those stats. If anything, it's open season on young girls. She was only 19 at the time. Whatever the verdict, she was treated like no person should ever be.

I hope this story does not go away.

Jurors can only be dismissed in North now if either side can show cause. You used to be able to manipulate juries you can not anymore.

We most certainly were not as well informed as the jury not even close. We weren't getting direct evidence we were getting people's interpretation of direct evidence boiled down to 240 characters. We even discussed at one stage on this thread how two people reporting the same piece of evidence gave two completely different interpretations.

Also there will continue to be cases not just rapes that will boil down to he said she said. Some of these will be brought to trial and some will result in convictions. Others will not.  We have a robust judicial system which is viewed admirably around the world. It can cope with cases like that so I hope this doesn't discourage genuine complaints from coming forward in the future.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 29, 2018, 08:26:32 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:29:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 05:21:15 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:33:08 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 28, 2018, 01:18:36 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 01:15:23 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??

Of course not. That already had to be clarified on this thread. People see what they want to see.

It's absolutely true!! FFS, why would you say otherwise Seanie?:

This directly from Rosanna Cooney's twitter:
~~~~~~~~~~
Judge:
Whether or not there are inconsistencies in the account the woman gave to the Doctor in the Rowan clinic and the account she gave to the police is a matter for you. If you decide there are inconsistencies you must decide why that must be so.

Trauma is a reason that can explain inconsistencies. If you are satisfied that trauma is the reason then the inconsistencies might not be that important to you.

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the defendants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Without the complainant's evidence there was clearly no case against the defendants. Medical evidence was very much inconclusive.

So as I said before, the jury had to decide whether she lied or made a mistake (as a result of trauma) when making the initial false allegation against Olding. Therefore, the judge was effectively instructing the jury to acquit if they thought she lied to the doctor (given the lack of other evidence).

This is the third or fourth time you've been pulled on this. You're either being deliberately disingenuous (which would make you a p***k as you'd be trying to skew the facts of a rape trial) or you're stupid. I'm not sure which it is but you feel free to decide.

What the judge actually said was that if they felt she lied to the doctor, she was directing them not to rely on that evidence unless they believed there was other independent evidence to support it. Yesterday you went as far at posting the utterly stupid comment that the judge had said, in these circumstances, the lads should "walk free".

I am as entitled to give my opinion on this as anyone, and I have no need for your pomposity.

If you don't think the judge's comments below were not important then you are entitled to that opinion. For me, in my opinion, I think it was absolutely key in the quick decision to acquit the defendants on all charges:

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the defendants.


Yes, we've been over this. She followed that with, as you well know,  "unless you find other independent evidence to support what she says"

So, now we've established that you selectively edit statements from the judge, would you like to explain how you arrived at the conclusion that the judge stated that the three should "walk free"?
Good man. The judge did not say "to support what she says", she said the jury can rely on independent evidence even if they do not rely on the woman's account. And, I did absolutely mention about the independent evidence in an earlier post (and I also said that my opinions are based solely on twitter summaries which can be unreliable), but it seems to me that in reality there was no other independent evidence as the medical evidence was inconclusive at best and the only third party evidence, while she said she saw sex, she said she didn't think she witnessed a rape.

So I won't go down your line of calling people names and saying "You're either being deliberately disingenuous (which would make you a p***k as you'd be trying to skew the facts of a rape trial) or you're stupid", because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But, in my opinion and based on twitter summaries, I honestly think it's hard to believe that anyone thinks there would be independent evidence that would come near convicting the defendants (particularly the 3 in the bedroom).

And therefore, in my opinion, the fact that she initially said that Olding vaginally raped her (and the police even charged him with that before changing to oral rape), together with the judge's closing summary and direction to the jury if they thought it was a deliberate lie, was key in the quick decision (which is the entire point I'm trying to make! :)

My guess is that most of the deliberations of the jury was around Harrison and one of his charges, as hardly any of the case against him depended on the complainant's initial complaint, but there was the driver and text messages, deletions, etc that were certainly worthy of discussion.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 29, 2018, 08:29:39 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 03:08:10 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:40:33 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.
OJ Simpson was acquitted in an hour.

Presumably you think that was as clear cut as it gets too.
The police botched this Sid. That is clear cut.

Fair enough if you believe she was raped. I must concede it's possible that's what happened just as you must concede it's possible that she lied. We weren't there so we'll never know for sure. What is not questionable is whether the investigation was carried out in a remotely unbiased or competent way. It wasn't and a conviction would have been unjust in those circumstances.

Apparently the OJ verdict took closer to four hours but I take your point. The jury were 100% right in Belfast though in coming to the only just verdict in the circumstances.

You are completely right here. Much is made of the treatment she got in the witness box but there is an old saying in the legal system " if you come seeking justice come with clean hands". The defence asked the questions which the police didn't because they were afraid of upsetting her. If they had asked the necessary questions the case would never have gone to court
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 29, 2018, 08:34:42 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 29, 2018, 08:17:04 AM

Jurors can only be dismissed in North now if either side can show cause. You used to be able to manipulate juries you can not anymore.

I still struggle with the 9-3 split on the jury, and from recollection I think you said that's not unusual at all.

I remember an old concept that went something like "justice must be done and must be seen to be done". Not sure if there's any weight in that at all, but you'd think a split closer to 50:50 would give a better appearance of justice being seen to be done. If you toss an unbiased coin 12 times, it would be very rare that you'd get one side coming up 9 times.

Would a 9-3 jury in favour of females be also common (or is there a reason there are much more males in the pool, or is that even the case)?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 29, 2018, 08:44:11 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 29, 2018, 08:26:32 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:29:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 05:21:15 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:33:08 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 28, 2018, 01:18:36 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 01:15:23 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??

Of course not. That already had to be clarified on this thread. People see what they want to see.

It's absolutely true!! FFS, why would you say otherwise Seanie?:

This directly from Rosanna Cooney's twitter:
~~~~~~~~~~
Judge:
Whether or not there are inconsistencies in the account the woman gave to the Doctor in the Rowan clinic and the account she gave to the police is a matter for you. If you decide there are inconsistencies you must decide why that must be so.

Trauma is a reason that can explain inconsistencies. If you are satisfied that trauma is the reason then the inconsistencies might not be that important to you.

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the defendants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Without the complainant's evidence there was clearly no case against the defendants. Medical evidence was very much inconclusive.

So as I said before, the jury had to decide whether she lied or made a mistake (as a result of trauma) when making the initial false allegation against Olding. Therefore, the judge was effectively instructing the jury to acquit if they thought she lied to the doctor (given the lack of other evidence).

This is the third or fourth time you've been pulled on this. You're either being deliberately disingenuous (which would make you a p***k as you'd be trying to skew the facts of a rape trial) or you're stupid. I'm not sure which it is but you feel free to decide.

What the judge actually said was that if they felt she lied to the doctor, she was directing them not to rely on that evidence unless they believed there was other independent evidence to support it. Yesterday you went as far at posting the utterly stupid comment that the judge had said, in these circumstances, the lads should "walk free".

I am as entitled to give my opinion on this as anyone, and I have no need for your pomposity.

If you don't think the judge's comments below were not important then you are entitled to that opinion. For me, in my opinion, I think it was absolutely key in the quick decision to acquit the defendants on all charges:

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the defendants.


Yes, we've been over this. She followed that with, as you well know,  "unless you find other independent evidence to support what she says"

So, now we've established that you selectively edit statements from the judge, would you like to explain how you arrived at the conclusion that the judge stated that the three should "walk free"?
Good man. The judge did not say "to support what she says", she said the jury can rely on independent evidence even if they do not rely on the woman's account. And, I did absolutely mention about the independent evidence in an earlier post (and I also said that my opinions are based solely on twitter summaries which can be unreliable), but it seems to me that in reality there was no other independent evidence as the medical evidence was inconclusive at best and the only third party evidence, while she said she saw sex, she said she didn't think she witnessed a rape.

So I won't go down your line of calling people names and saying "You're either being deliberately disingenuous (which would make you a p***k as you'd be trying to skew the facts of a rape trial) or you're stupid", because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But, in my opinion and based on twitter summaries, I honestly think it's hard to believe that anyone thinks there would be independent evidence that would come near convicting the defendants (particularly the 3 in the bedroom).

And therefore, in my opinion, the fact that she initially said that Olding vaginally raped her (and the police even charged him with that before changing to oral rape), together with the judge's closing summary and direction to the jury if they thought it was a deliberate lie, was key in the quick decision (which is the entire point I'm trying to make! :)

My guess is that most of the deliberations of the jury was around Harrison and one of his charges, as hardly any of the case against him depended on the complainant's initial complaint, but there was the driver and text messages, deletions, etc that were certainly worthy of discussion.

So nowhere, absolutely nowhere, at any time, did the judge say "they should walk free" if the jury found that she lied to Dr. Lavery, as you originally claimed?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Applesisapples on March 29, 2018, 08:54:48 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 12:33:57 PM
Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.
I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 29, 2018, 08:54:56 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 29, 2018, 08:34:42 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 29, 2018, 08:17:04 AM

Jurors can only be dismissed in North now if either side can show cause. You used to be able to manipulate juries you can not anymore.

I still struggle with the 9-3 split on the jury, and from recollection I think you said that's not unusual at all.

I remember an old concept that went something like "justice must be done and must be seen to be done". Not sure if there's any weight in that at all, but you'd think a split closer to 50:50 would give a better appearance of justice being seen to be done. If you toss an unbiased coin 12 times, it would be very rare that you'd get one side coming up 9 times.

Would a 9-3 jury in favour of females be also common (or is there a reason there are much more males in the pool, or is that even the case)?

I'm open to correction on this but I think I read an article years ago that said a much higher proportion of women defer jury duty due to childcare commitments. Dont have the source but I could understand that being the case to some extent. However whether it is enough to materially skew the overall gender balance for juries I have no idea
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 29, 2018, 08:59:41 AM
On Facebook (bar here, it's the only social media I do) I'd say there was a good split of men women saying not guilt was the right decision.. if it had have been 50/50 I doubt (my opinion) that would have made any difference on the verdict
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 09:03:34 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 29, 2018, 08:29:39 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 03:08:10 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:40:33 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.
OJ Simpson was acquitted in an hour.

Presumably you think that was as clear cut as it gets too.
The police botched this Sid. That is clear cut.

Fair enough if you believe she was raped. I must concede it's possible that's what happened just as you must concede it's possible that she lied. We weren't there so we'll never know for sure. What is not questionable is whether the investigation was carried out in a remotely unbiased or competent way. It wasn't and a conviction would have been unjust in those circumstances.

Apparently the OJ verdict took closer to four hours but I take your point. The jury were 100% right in Belfast though in coming to the only just verdict in the circumstances.

You are completely right here. Much is made of the treatment she got in the witness box but there is an old saying in the legal system " if you come seeking justice come with clean hands". The defence asked the questions which the police didn't because they were afraid of upsetting her. If they had asked the necessary questions the case would never have gone to court
Thanks AS.  Unsurprisingly none of the #Ibelieveher anger seems to be directed at the police.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 09:06:13 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 29, 2018, 08:59:41 AM
On Facebook (bar here, it's the only social media I do) I'd say there was a good split of men women saying not guilt was the right decision.. if it had have been 50/50 I doubt (my opinion) that would have made any difference on the verdict
Given the verdict was so swift and unanimous it seems a red herring but I think Hound's point was more about justice being seen to be done. A 50/50 jury would have delivered the same verdict and given the crazies one less thing to howl about.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 09:10:46 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 29, 2018, 08:54:48 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 12:33:57 PM
Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.
I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.

Twitter is the hotbed for fools and those with agendas. There will be no consequences really but there could be. The reality is that this is feeding people's agendas yesterday and today and maybe tomorrow but the old phrase that today's news is tomorrow's chip paper will kick in and they will be debating the 8th Amendment or whatever their next cause is.

It has been stated on here that there is the possibility of a civil action. As the balance of probabilities is the burden of proof there is w better chance that she might win it. I honestly am not sure that will happen in terms of running it to a hearing. If this woman does she loses her anonymity. If she starts one and doesn't run it the whole way to hearing and accepts an out of court settlement then she will be castigated as the perception will be that she did it for the money. Also if she runs it and loses then the stark reality is that the court would likely award costs against her and the costs of 4 defendants in a high court civil action will be huge. Easily half a million. I also think that given the seemingly very clear cut approach of the jury to a finding of not guilty then I reckon that she'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Olding is being applauded for his statement but read it again. He's basically calling her a liar. It may be couched up in nicer language but at the back of it all he's saying he doesn't believe her side of the story. That has been lost as well in translation.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 29, 2018, 09:14:41 AM
That last sentence is harsh BCB. Of course he doesn't believe her story, he spent the last 9 weeks in court refuting it. What I read was that a) He wished it didn't happen, and b) He accepts she has a different view of the event. He just doesn't agree with it, and is glad the jury sided with him.


It's fairly clear they acted like knobs, especially afterwards, and that's why I'd be cynical about his statement. But I wouldn't be too hard on that statement because he doesn't agree with her version of events..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Applesisapples on March 29, 2018, 09:27:18 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 09:10:46 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 29, 2018, 08:54:48 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 12:33:57 PM
Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.
I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.

Twitter is the hotbed for fools and those with agendas. There will be no consequences really but there could be. The reality is that this is feeding people's agendas yesterday and today and maybe tomorrow but the old phrase that today's news is tomorrow's chip paper will kick in and they will be debating the 8th Amendment or whatever their next cause is.

It has been stated on here that there is the possibility of a civil action. As the balance of probabilities is the burden of proof there is w better chance that she might win it. I honestly am not sure that will happen in terms of running it to a hearing. If this woman does she loses her anonymity. If she starts one and doesn't run it the whole way to hearing and accepts an out of court settlement then she will be castigated as the perception will be that she did it for the money. Also if she runs it and loses then the stark reality is that the court would likely award costs against her and the costs of 4 defendants in a high court civil action will be huge. Easily half a million. I also think that given the seemingly very clear cut approach of the jury to a finding of not guilty then I reckon that she'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Olding is being applauded for his statement but read it again. He's basically calling her a liar. It may be couched up in nicer language but at the back of it all he's saying he doesn't believe her side of the story. That has been lost as well in translation.
Agreed he has to call her a liar or admit guilt, but he did not have to acknowledge that she has been hurt by the events of that evening, and in his position I'm not sure I would have been as generous.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 29, 2018, 09:28:26 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 29, 2018, 09:14:41 AM
That last sentence is harsh BCB. Of course he doesn't believe her story, he spent the last 9 weeks in court refuting it. What I read was that a) He wished it didn't happen, and b) He accepts she has a different view of the event. He just doesn't agree with it, and is glad the jury sided with him.


It's fairly clear they acted like knobs, especially afterwards, and that's why I'd be cynical about his statement. But I wouldn't be too hard on that statement because he doesn't agree with her version of events..
I thought the statement was designed to draw a line under everything. He could have done worse.
It will be 8nteresting to see what happens next.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 29, 2018, 09:34:22 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 09:10:46 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 29, 2018, 08:54:48 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 12:33:57 PM
Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.
I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.

Twitter is the hotbed for fools and those with agendas. There will be no consequences really but there could be. The reality is that this is feeding people's agendas yesterday and today and maybe tomorrow but the old phrase that today's news is tomorrow's chip paper will kick in and they will be debating the 8th Amendment or whatever their next cause is.

It has been stated on here that there is the possibility of a civil action. As the balance of probabilities is the burden of proof there is w better chance that she might win it. I honestly am not sure that will happen in terms of running it to a hearing. If this woman does she loses her anonymity. If she starts one and doesn't run it the whole way to hearing and accepts an out of court settlement then she will be castigated as the perception will be that she did it for the money. Also if she runs it and loses then the stark reality is that the court would likely award costs against her and the costs of 4 defendants in a high court civil action will be huge. Easily half a million. I also think that given the seemingly very clear cut approach of the jury to a finding of not guilty then I reckon that she'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Olding is being applauded for his statement but read it again. He's basically calling her a liar. It may be couched up in nicer language but at the back of it all he's saying he doesn't believe her side of the story. That has been lost as well in translation.

Jeez, another 5 pages since yesterday evening!

Agree bcb1, I think the IP would be ill advised to take this any further.  Look at where we are today.  OK, not guilty all around, but she is still generating a lot of sympathy right from the #ibelieveher crowd to people like me and others here, who while fully accepting the jury's verdict as being the "right" one and being honest enough to state that I probably would have reached the same verdict, don't believe that she out and out lied.  The number of inconsistencies in her evidence taken in the round meant that the evidence was not near beyond a reasonable doubt.  So I still have sympathy for what she's been through.

Also although the defendants are free, they're not exactly leaving the court "without a stain on their character".  So again the focus is still on the four boyos and it remains to be seen how Ulster Rugby deal with this case.  There's still a lot of public opprobrium for them and their attitudes.  As reported on joe.ie Harrison's decision to decamp straight to the bar of the Hilton Hotel from the court at lunchtime made me ask has he learned anything from this process!?!?

All that could be lost with another case and given the speed an unanimity of the decision would she even make the "on the balance of probability" threshold?

Also quick thanks to yourself and David McKeown for the legal info.  Never thought I'd say I learned a lot on the GAA Board, but I did!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on March 29, 2018, 09:37:45 AM
Two questions

Did paddy Jackson know when he gave his statement that the dna evidence showed no evidence of him having vaginal intercourse with the compliant? He he didn't know it makes his account more believeable as the DNA evidence could have sunk him if it showed a sperm sample from him.

Was the compliant wearing shoes during the incident? She said Jackson pulled down her trousers at the start of the rape and at the end she put her underwear in her pocket. Meaning it had come all the way off her legs. If she was wearing shoes who took the shoes off? If she took them off during sexual activity it does denote consent to a fair ..nearly absolute degree if i was on the jury.

Probably no one knows here but if i was on the jury i would have liked to have known the answers to the two questions.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Farrandeelin on March 29, 2018, 09:38:21 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 09:03:34 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 29, 2018, 08:29:39 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 03:08:10 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 28, 2018, 08:40:33 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 28, 2018, 07:52:06 PM
A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.
OJ Simpson was acquitted in an hour.

Presumably you think that was as clear cut as it gets too.
The police botched this Sid. That is clear cut.

Fair enough if you believe she was raped. I must concede it's possible that's what happened just as you must concede it's possible that she lied. We weren't there so we'll never know for sure. What is not questionable is whether the investigation was carried out in a remotely unbiased or competent way. It wasn't and a conviction would have been unjust in those circumstances.

Apparently the OJ verdict took closer to four hours but I take your point. The jury were 100% right in Belfast though in coming to the only just verdict in the circumstances.

You are completely right here. Much is made of the treatment she got in the witness box but there is an old saying in the legal system " if you come seeking justice come with clean hands". The defence asked the questions which the police didn't because they were afraid of upsetting her. If they had asked the necessary questions the case would never have gone to court
Thanks AS.  Unsurprisingly none of the #Ibelieveher anger seems to be directed at the police.
Who is the #ibelieveher anger directed at? The jury who acquitted her? Or are they just letting off steam because they hoped the fellas would be put away? Genuine question. I have unfollowed circa 90% of my fb friends, I have a Twitter account I don't remember the password for. The only thing I use is Instagram whenever I get notifications for it and there's two or three #ibelieveher pics on it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on March 29, 2018, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 29, 2018, 09:34:22 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 09:10:46 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 29, 2018, 08:54:48 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 12:33:57 PM
Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.
I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.

Twitter is the hotbed for fools and those with agendas. There will be no consequences really but there could be. The reality is that this is feeding people's agendas yesterday and today and maybe tomorrow but the old phrase that today's news is tomorrow's chip paper will kick in and they will be debating the 8th Amendment or whatever their next cause is.

It has been stated on here that there is the possibility of a civil action. As the balance of probabilities is the burden of proof there is w better chance that she might win it. I honestly am not sure that will happen in terms of running it to a hearing. If this woman does she loses her anonymity. If she starts one and doesn't run it the whole way to hearing and accepts an out of court settlement then she will be castigated as the perception will be that she did it for the money. Also if she runs it and loses then the stark reality is that the court would likely award costs against her and the costs of 4 defendants in a high court civil action will be huge. Easily half a million. I also think that given the seemingly very clear cut approach of the jury to a finding of not guilty then I reckon that she'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Olding is being applauded for his statement but read it again. He's basically calling her a liar. It may be couched up in nicer language but at the back of it all he's saying he doesn't believe her side of the story. That has been lost as well in translation.

Jeez, another 5 pages since yesterday evening!

Agree bcb1, I think the IP would be ill advised to take this any further.  Look at where we are today.  OK, not guilty all around, but she is still generating a lot of sympathy right from the #ibelieveher crowd to people like me and others here, who while fully accepting the jury's verdict as being the "right" one and being honest enough to state that I probably would have reached the same verdict, don't believe that she out and out lied.  The number of inconsistencies in her evidence taken in the round meant that the evidence was not near beyond a reasonable doubt.  So I still have sympathy for what she's been through.

Also although the defendants are free, they're not exactly leaving the court "without a stain on their character".  So again the focus is still on the four boyos and it remains to be seen how Ulster Rugby deal with this case.  There's still a lot of public opprobrium for them and their attitudes.  As reported on joe.ie Harrison's decision to decamp straight to the bar of the Hilton Hotel from the court at lunchtime made me ask has he learned anything from this process!?!?

All that could be lost with another case and given the speed an unanimity of the decision would she even make the "on the balance of probability" threshold?

Also quick thanks to yourself and David McKeown for the legal info.  Never thought I'd say I learned a lot on the GAA Board, but I did!

What inconsistencies in her evidence? I'm only aware of the not mentioning to the doctor she was orally raped.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on March 29, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 29, 2018, 09:34:22 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 09:10:46 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 29, 2018, 08:54:48 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 12:33:57 PM
Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.
I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.

Twitter is the hotbed for fools and those with agendas. There will be no consequences really but there could be. The reality is that this is feeding people's agendas yesterday and today and maybe tomorrow but the old phrase that today's news is tomorrow's chip paper will kick in and they will be debating the 8th Amendment or whatever their next cause is.

It has been stated on here that there is the possibility of a civil action. As the balance of probabilities is the burden of proof there is w better chance that she might win it. I honestly am not sure that will happen in terms of running it to a hearing. If this woman does she loses her anonymity. If she starts one and doesn't run it the whole way to hearing and accepts an out of court settlement then she will be castigated as the perception will be that she did it for the money. Also if she runs it and loses then the stark reality is that the court would likely award costs against her and the costs of 4 defendants in a high court civil action will be huge. Easily half a million. I also think that given the seemingly very clear cut approach of the jury to a finding of not guilty then I reckon that she'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Olding is being applauded for his statement but read it again. He's basically calling her a liar. It may be couched up in nicer language but at the back of it all he's saying he doesn't believe her side of the story. That has been lost as well in translation.

Jeez, another 5 pages since yesterday evening!

Agree bcb1, I think the IP would be ill advised to take this any further.  Look at where we are today.  OK, not guilty all around, but she is still generating a lot of sympathy right from the #ibelieveher crowd to people like me and others here, who while fully accepting the jury's verdict as being the "right" one and being honest enough to state that I probably would have reached the same verdict, don't believe that she out and out lied.  The number of inconsistencies in her evidence taken in the round meant that the evidence was not near beyond a reasonable doubt.  So I still have sympathy for what she's been through.

Also although the defendants are free, they're not exactly leaving the court "without a stain on their character".  So again the focus is still on the four boyos and it remains to be seen how Ulster Rugby deal with this case.  There's still a lot of public opprobrium for them and their attitudes.  As reported on joe.ie Harrison's decision to decamp straight to the bar of the Hilton Hotel from the court at lunchtime made me ask has he learned anything from this process!?!?

All that could be lost with another case and given the speed an unanimity of the decision would she even make the "on the balance of probability" threshold?

Also quick thanks to yourself and David McKeown for the legal info.  Never thought I'd say I learned a lot on the GAA Board, but I did!

Sometimes you need to separate the wheat from the chaff and there was loads of chaff on this thread but the nuggets from David and BCB give a little more insight into what's going on.

The definition of legal rape was a very new concept to me and I'd say to 95% of the population at large.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 29, 2018, 09:41:17 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 29, 2018, 08:34:42 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 29, 2018, 08:17:04 AM

Jurors can only be dismissed in North now if either side can show cause. You used to be able to manipulate juries you can not anymore.

I still struggle with the 9-3 split on the jury, and from recollection I think you said that's not unusual at all.

I remember an old concept that went something like "justice must be done and must be seen to be done". Not sure if there's any weight in that at all, but you'd think a split closer to 50:50 would give a better appearance of justice being seen to be done. If you toss an unbiased coin 12 times, it would be very rare that you'd get one side coming up 9 times.

Would a 9-3 jury in favour of females be also common (or is there a reason there are much more males in the pool, or is that even the case)?

The jury pool is made up of people in the area on the electoral register. A percentage of them are called using a formulae. Some won't show up and some will get excused in advanced for a plethora of reasons. A panel of about 15 is then chosen from that pool. Without knowing how many men and women are in the pool it is impossible to calculate the odds of a 9-3 split. Were it 50-50 then you would expect a 9-3 split about 5.4% of the time. Although given the low sample size the laws of probabilities would suggest the laws of probabilities don't apply. That percentage chance changes dramatically if the pool isn't 50-50 to begin.

On an aside a coin toss isn't 50-50 either there is a slight mathematical bias toward the side of top when the coin is flipped.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 29, 2018, 09:41:23 AM
David, do you know if the definition is different in the ROI jurisdiction?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 09:43:20 AM
Firstly,
Syf - you have made a complete cnut of yourself on this thread. Some of the stuff you have come out with have been embarrassing and crigeworthy. Given you run and hide when asked a difficult question says it all. But it takes all sorts to make a discussion board I guess.

The #ibelieveher crowd seem to be an hysterical crowd of baying women with pitchforks. Reading some of their comments shows they know even less about the case than we do.

Matt Coopers show yesterday evening for the first hour was basically 3 or 4 women feeding the #ibelieveher crowd. You would have thought they were found guilty. Very unbalanced and unlike Cooper however he did say they asked a number of men to come on and discuss it but all refused. No doubt this was because they would have been called rape apologists and castigated. Perhaps even their careers ruined.

Someone posted earlier that the public would have had the same info as the jury. Complete nonsense. We were getting Twitter updates and a few newsapaper columns, not almost 9 weeks of evidence.

The boys were innocent until proven guilty.......found not guilty so as BCB said they are innocent. Complete arseholes and neanderthals but innocent nonetheless
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 29, 2018, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 29, 2018, 09:41:23 AM
David, do you know if the definition is different in the ROI jurisdiction?

It is as I know it can be committed recklessly in the republic. I would need to check but I also don't think consent is defined in statute although that may have changed in recent years.

I think it's along the lines of a man commits rape if he has intercourse with a person who did not consent and he either knew this or was reckless. I'm no expert though and I would need to do a little research.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 29, 2018, 10:03:04 AM
As for the possibility of a civil trial I would think it unlikely. The complete dismissal of all charges particularly those against McIlroy, the potential cost implications if she can't get legal aid, the lack of anonymity, the lack of protections regarding rumoured evidence that wasn't admissible at the criminal trial would all suggest to me that it's unlikely.

Of course I could be wrong she may sue for trespass to the person and may get legal aid etc so you never know.

Similarly I doubt the defendants are likely to sue the PPS or PSNI for malicious prosecution or misfeasence in public office simply because such torts particularly the former are difficult to make out but again I could be completely wrong and am not privy to what may happened.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 29, 2018, 10:03:28 AM
Taylor that's the best post I've seen on this thread.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 10:07:49 AM
Quote from: caprea on March 29, 2018, 09:37:45 AM
Two questions

Did paddy Jackson know when he gave his statement that the dna evidence showed no evidence of him having vaginal intercourse with the compliant? He he didn't know it makes his account more believeable as the DNA evidence could have sunk him if it showed a sperm sample from him.

Was the compliant wearing shoes during the incident? She said Jackson pulled down her trousers at the start of the rape and at the end she put her underwear in her pocket. Meaning it had come all the way off her legs. If she was wearing shoes who took the shoes off? If she took them off during sexual activity it does denote consent to a fair ..nearly absolute degree if i was on the jury.

Probably no one knows here but if i was on the jury i would have liked to have known the answers to the two questions.

I am not sure about the shoes but vaguely in reference to your first question I beleiv that in Paddy Jackson's first interview when he made his statements the defence solicitor did not have access to the forensic evidence. I would tend to agree with you that this goes a long way to providing back up to his story.

In regards to Stuart Olding statement maybe I am being harsh but he categorically states how he told the truth the whole way through the investigation and trial. The IP didn't. The reason why I think it's important is that what has also been lost a bit is that the IP made an allegation against him of vaginal rape. It was not proceeded but it still sat on the books and he had to be declared not guilty if it too. She later recanted her story and aid it was only oral rape. She lied about that. Plain and simple. This idea that she is whiter than white is incorrect. This to my mind brings a lot of her credibility into question
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 29, 2018, 10:14:23 AM
Anyone know what Joe McVeigh (one of Jackson's legal team) was referring to when he said:

"All the lawyers have been distracted by having to man the barriers against a flood of misinformed, misconceived and malicious content on the internet, particularly during the last phase of this trial, and, worryingly even at the hands of public servants who should have known better."
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 10:21:50 AM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 09:43:20 AM
Firstly,
Syf - you have made a complete cnut of yourself on this thread. Some of the stuff you have come out with have been embarrassing and crigeworthy. Given you run and hide when asked a difficult question says it all. But it takes all sorts to make a discussion board I guess.

The #ibelieveher crowd seem to be an hysterical crowd of baying women with pitchforks. Reading some of their comments shows they know even less about the case than we do.

Matt Coopers show yesterday evening for the first hour was basically 3 or 4 women feeding the #ibelieveher crowd. You would have thought they were found guilty. Very unbalanced and unlike Cooper however he did say they asked a number of men to come on and discuss it but all refused. No doubt this was because they would have been called rape apologists and castigated. Perhaps even their careers ruined.

Someone posted earlier that the public would have had the same info as the jury. Complete nonsense. We were getting Twitter updates and a few newsapaper columns, not almost 9 weeks of evidence.

The boys were innocent until proven guilty.......found not guilty so as BCB said they are innocent. Complete arseholes and neanderthals but innocent nonetheless
I think this says it all.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 29, 2018, 10:22:08 AM
Maybe this:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/rugby-rape-trial-verdict-jackson-and-olding-pursue-lawsuit-against-bbc-over-online-article-36754712.html

Ulster and Ireland rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding are to pursue a privacy lawsuit against the BBC following their acquittal at Belfast Crown Court.The action, initiated in 2016, had been put on hold pending the outcome of the rape trial.  Following yesterday's verdict, a solicitor representing Mr Jackson, confirmed the action would now go ahead. The civil suit was filed after the identities of the two rugby players were reported prior to them being charged.

Both men issued writs against the BBC seeking damages for misuse of private information after details were published in an online news article on November 1, 2016, months before charges were brought against them.  The report named the two players and said they were two of three men questioned about alleged sex offences at a property in Belfast on June 28, 2016.It said they were arrested that June but details had just emerged.

The lawsuit alleges negligence, breach of statutory duty and nuisance.  In a statement at the time, Mr Jackson's solicitor said he and his client were both disappointed and concerned that the information had been "leaked to the press" before the investigation had concluded and well in advance of any final decision on a charge.  In their civil action, Mr Jackson and Mr Olding contend their arrests were a private matter and they were not given sufficient notice for a right of reply before the article appeared. Lawyers for the two players also raised issues over how the information was obtained by the BBC.

The case was last before the Belfast High Court last October, when it was adjourned.  The civil proceedings had been the subject of reporting restrictions which prevented them being named, but this was lifted in June last year when the players confirmed they were no longer seeking anonymity.  Mr Jackson has also initiated a separate civil action against a freelance sports journalist and persons unknown in the PSNI.  But details of this case have yet to be outlined in court.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LeoMc on March 29, 2018, 10:38:01 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 29, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 29, 2018, 09:34:22 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 09:10:46 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 29, 2018, 08:54:48 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 12:33:57 PM
Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.
I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.

Twitter is the hotbed for fools and those with agendas. There will be no consequences really but there could be. The reality is that this is feeding people's agendas yesterday and today and maybe tomorrow but the old phrase that today's news is tomorrow's chip paper will kick in and they will be debating the 8th Amendment or whatever their next cause is.

It has been stated on here that there is the possibility of a civil action. As the balance of probabilities is the burden of proof there is w better chance that she might win it. I honestly am not sure that will happen in terms of running it to a hearing. If this woman does she loses her anonymity. If she starts one and doesn't run it the whole way to hearing and accepts an out of court settlement then she will be castigated as the perception will be that she did it for the money. Also if she runs it and loses then the stark reality is that the court would likely award costs against her and the costs of 4 defendants in a high court civil action will be huge. Easily half a million. I also think that given the seemingly very clear cut approach of the jury to a finding of not guilty then I reckon that she'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Olding is being applauded for his statement but read it again. He's basically calling her a liar. It may be couched up in nicer language but at the back of it all he's saying he doesn't believe her side of the story. That has been lost as well in translation.

Jeez, another 5 pages since yesterday evening!

Agree bcb1, I think the IP would be ill advised to take this any further.  Look at where we are today.  OK, not guilty all around, but she is still generating a lot of sympathy right from the #ibelieveher crowd to people like me and others here, who while fully accepting the jury's verdict as being the "right" one and being honest enough to state that I probably would have reached the same verdict, don't believe that she out and out lied.  The number of inconsistencies in her evidence taken in the round meant that the evidence was not near beyond a reasonable doubt.  So I still have sympathy for what she's been through.

Also although the defendants are free, they're not exactly leaving the court "without a stain on their character".  So again the focus is still on the four boyos and it remains to be seen how Ulster Rugby deal with this case.  There's still a lot of public opprobrium for them and their attitudes.  As reported on joe.ie Harrison's decision to decamp straight to the bar of the Hilton Hotel from the court at lunchtime made me ask has he learned anything from this process!?!?

All that could be lost with another case and given the speed an unanimity of the decision would she even make the "on the balance of probability" threshold?

Also quick thanks to yourself and David McKeown for the legal info.  Never thought I'd say I learned a lot on the GAA Board, but I did!

Sometimes you need to separate the wheat from the chaff and there was loads of chaff on this thread but the nuggets from David and BCB give a little more insight into what's going on.

The definition of legal rape was a very new concept to me and I'd say to 95% of the population at large.
+1
The defence of reasonable belief that consent was given just shows the shades of grey in interpreting events.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: grounded on March 29, 2018, 11:03:59 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on March 29, 2018, 10:38:01 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on March 29, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 29, 2018, 09:34:22 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 09:10:46 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 29, 2018, 08:54:48 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 28, 2018, 12:33:57 PM
Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.
I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.

Twitter is the hotbed for fools and those with agendas. There will be no consequences really but there could be. The reality is that this is feeding people's agendas yesterday and today and maybe tomorrow but the old phrase that today's news is tomorrow's chip paper will kick in and they will be debating the 8th Amendment or whatever their next cause is.

It has been stated on here that there is the possibility of a civil action. As the balance of probabilities is the burden of proof there is w better chance that she might win it. I honestly am not sure that will happen in terms of running it to a hearing. If this woman does she loses her anonymity. If she starts one and doesn't run it the whole way to hearing and accepts an out of court settlement then she will be castigated as the perception will be that she did it for the money. Also if she runs it and loses then the stark reality is that the court would likely award costs against her and the costs of 4 defendants in a high court civil action will be huge. Easily half a million. I also think that given the seemingly very clear cut approach of the jury to a finding of not guilty then I reckon that she'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Olding is being applauded for his statement but read it again. He's basically calling her a liar. It may be couched up in nicer language but at the back of it all he's saying he doesn't believe her side of the story. That has been lost as well in translation.

Jeez, another 5 pages since yesterday evening!

Agree bcb1, I think the IP would be ill advised to take this any further.  Look at where we are today.  OK, not guilty all around, but she is still generating a lot of sympathy right from the #ibelieveher crowd to people like me and others here, who while fully accepting the jury's verdict as being the "right" one and being honest enough to state that I probably would have reached the same verdict, don't believe that she out and out lied.  The number of inconsistencies in her evidence taken in the round meant that the evidence was not near beyond a reasonable doubt.  So I still have sympathy for what she's been through.

Also although the defendants are free, they're not exactly leaving the court "without a stain on their character".  So again the focus is still on the four boyos and it remains to be seen how Ulster Rugby deal with this case.  There's still a lot of public opprobrium for them and their attitudes.  As reported on joe.ie Harrison's decision to decamp straight to the bar of the Hilton Hotel from the court at lunchtime made me ask has he learned anything from this process!?!?

All that could be lost with another case and given the speed an unanimity of the decision would she even make the "on the balance of probability" threshold?

Also quick thanks to yourself and David McKeown for the legal info.  Never thought I'd say I learned a lot on the GAA Board, but I did!

Sometimes you need to separate the wheat from the chaff and there was loads of chaff on this thread but the nuggets from David and BCB give a little more insight into what's going on.

The definition of legal rape was a very new concept to me and I'd say to 95% of the population at large.
+1
The defence of reasonable belief that consent was given just shows the shades of grey in interpreting events.

My feelings as well. I appreciate a hypothetical question( and a bit daft) but given the complexities of the case particularly the area of consent; had an eye witness been present the entire time, could they have ascertained for certain that consent was obtained?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 29, 2018, 11:04:32 AM
Will Paddy's house be added to the tour bus route of Belfast?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 29, 2018, 11:15:15 AM
The problem with social media and especially twitter is that it actively encourages you to follow with people of similar beliefs. What happens is that your newsfeed becomes dominated with posts from people whos beliefs and values fit your your own narrative, which then becomes fact in your eyes. This was clear in the shock and horror in some circles that they were found not guilty. These people had a pre-determined notion in their heads that the 4 were unquestionably guilty, because everything they read on social media concurred with this belief.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 12:12:39 PM
Cheers RedHand.

Social Media gives some people who otherwise would be normal citizens a megphone to spout nonsense and see who can be the most upset.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 29, 2018, 12:18:42 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 29, 2018, 11:15:15 AM
The problem with social media and especially twitter is that it actively encourages you to follow with people of similar beliefs. What happens is that your newsfeed becomes dominated with posts from people whos beliefs and values fit your your own narrative, which then becomes fact in your eyes. This was clear in the shock and horror in some circles that they were found not guilty. These people had a pre-determined notion in their heads that the 4 were unquestionably guilty, because everything they read on social media concurred with this belief.

I personally would try to follow a few people who don't share my beliefs to get a bit of perspective on things and as such there's a lot of #ibelileveher stuff on my timeline. It's very hard not to type something but as has been said if you weigh in at all you're labelled a rape apologist etc. it's just not worth it!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on March 29, 2018, 12:24:50 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 29, 2018, 11:15:15 AM
The problem with social media and especially twitter is that it actively encourages you to follow with people of similar beliefs. What happens is that your newsfeed becomes dominated with posts from people whos beliefs and values fit your your own narrative, which then becomes fact in your eyes. This was clear in the shock and horror in some circles that they were found not guilty. These people had a pre-determined notion in their heads that the 4 were unquestionably guilty, because everything they read on social media concurred with this belief.
What is quite annoying for me is the presumption that everything in this case is black and white. I would follow a lot of "feminists" on twitter who I've since unfollowed after their OTT reactions to the not guilty verdicts. "I'd never come forward if I was raped" "no girl will tell the police after what she's went through" yet the PSNI have came out and said they've had something like 20 odd similar complaints since this case started which they say is well above average.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 12:35:59 PM
would lesser charges of sexual assualt have been found guilty ???

did Crown prosecution over egg the charges either on their own or at the behest of someone who may have highlighted fears of a civil case being taken
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 12:37:15 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 12:35:59 PM
would lesser charges of sexual assualt have been found guilty ???

did Crown prosecution over egg the charges either on their own or at the behest of someone who may have highlighted fears of a civil case being taken

Paddy Jackson was charged with sexual assault and was found not guilty
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:47:32 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 29, 2018, 07:03:40 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:15:10 AM
Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him

The article you posted explicitly stated that they had clearly agreed, in advance, there would be no unprotected sex. They were fooling around a bit, as you say, and he penetrated her as you say. That is rape, clear as daylight. The fact you don't get that is appalling.

I'll tell you why I have sympathy for him.
It's an example which happened to me a few years ago. I'd been seeing a girl and we broke up, a few weeks later we run into each other, get chatting, I end up back at her place. She says "we're not having sex". We go to bed, one thing leads to the other and we end up having sex. She has never explicitly given consent but it has been implied in the heat of the moment.
She could easily have said the minute we started "Mayo4Sam you're raping me".
I can't be the only one here that has been in this situation or one where you meet a young one out who says "you can come home with me but we're not having sex" only to end up having sex. By the judgement above that's rape
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 12:50:52 PM
also charged with rape.

i should have stated sexual assualt alone
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 29, 2018, 12:55:29 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 29, 2018, 12:18:42 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 29, 2018, 11:15:15 AM
The problem with social media and especially twitter is that it actively encourages you to follow with people of similar beliefs. What happens is that your newsfeed becomes dominated with posts from people whos beliefs and values fit your your own narrative, which then becomes fact in your eyes. This was clear in the shock and horror in some circles that they were found not guilty. These people had a pre-determined notion in their heads that the 4 were unquestionably guilty, because everything they read on social media concurred with this belief.

I personally would try to follow a few people who don't share my beliefs to get a bit of perspective on things and as such there's a lot of #ibelileveher stuff on my timeline. It's very hard not to type something but as has been said if you weigh in at all you're labelled a rape apologist etc. it's just not worth it!

Same. If you question their angle at all you are a rapist. It's best to not engage. I think there was a silent majority during the trial that believed they would not be found guilty that is only able to speak about the trial now.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 29, 2018, 12:57:36 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:47:32 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 29, 2018, 07:03:40 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:15:10 AM
Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him

The article you posted explicitly stated that they had clearly agreed, in advance, there would be no unprotected sex. They were fooling around a bit, as you say, and he penetrated her as you say. That is rape, clear as daylight. The fact you don't get that is appalling.

I'll tell you why I have sympathy for him.
It's an example which happened to me a few years ago. I'd been seeing a girl and we broke up, a few weeks later we run into each other, get chatting, I end up back at her place. She says "we're not having sex". We go to bed, one thing leads to the other and we end up having sex. She has never explicitly given consent but it has been implied in the heat of the moment.
She could easily have said the minute we started "Mayo4Sam you're raping me".
I can't be the only one here that has been in this situation or one where you meet a young one out who says "you can come home with me but we're not having sex" only to end up having sex. By the judgement above that's rape

If she called you by your screen name on an internet forum its no wonder it didn't work out!  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 29, 2018, 12:58:15 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:47:32 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 29, 2018, 07:03:40 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:15:10 AM
Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him

The article you posted explicitly stated that they had clearly agreed, in advance, there would be no unprotected sex. They were fooling around a bit, as you say, and he penetrated her as you say. That is rape, clear as daylight. The fact you don't get that is appalling.

I'll tell you why I have sympathy for him.
It's an example which happened to me a few years ago. I'd been seeing a girl and we broke up, a few weeks later we run into each other, get chatting, I end up back at her place. She says "we're not having sex". We go to bed, one thing leads to the other and we end up having sex. She has never explicitly given consent but it has been implied in the heat of the moment.
She could easily have said the minute we started "Mayo4Sam you're raping me".
I can't be the only one here that has been in this situation or one where you meet a young one out who says "you can come home with me but we're not having sex" only to end up having sex. By the judgement above that's rape

I didn't agree to sex the other night! Sexual assault but not rape
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 12:58:26 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 12:50:52 PM
also charged with rape.

i should have stated sexual assualt alone

He could still have been found guilty of sexual assault if he was found not guilty of rape. 2 separate acts. The fact that he was found not guilty of sexual assault suggests to me that the jury felt she was there consensually as Jackson admitted to doing what he was accused of in the sexual assault. If they felt she didn't consent then they would have found him guilty. That's one of the reasons I believe that they didn't believe her in her assertion that it was not consensual
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 29, 2018, 12:59:15 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:47:32 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 29, 2018, 07:03:40 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:15:10 AM
Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him

The article you posted explicitly stated that they had clearly agreed, in advance, there would be no unprotected sex. They were fooling around a bit, as you say, and he penetrated her as you say. That is rape, clear as daylight. The fact you don't get that is appalling.

I'll tell you why I have sympathy for him.
It's an example which happened to me a few years ago. I'd been seeing a girl and we broke up, a few weeks later we run into each other, get chatting, I end up back at her place. She says "we're not having sex". We go to bed, one thing leads to the other and we end up having sex. She has never explicitly given consent but it has been implied in the heat of the moment.
She could easily have said the minute we started "Mayo4Sam you're raping me".
I can't be the only one here that has been in this situation or one where you meet a young one out who says "you can come home with me but we're not having sex" only to end up having sex. By the judgement above that's rape

I dont agree with this M4S. To me its obvious there was consent in both the situations above and It was reasonable in both situations to assume consent had been given.  The woman is entitled to change her mind from a No to a Yes just as much as from a Yes to a No at any point.

The situation with the guy with no condom is different, he was doing something he knew she would not have consented to (and was a complete sc**bag for doing so by the way and I have no sympathy for him).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 01:00:01 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 29, 2018, 12:57:36 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:47:32 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 29, 2018, 07:03:40 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:15:10 AM
Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him

The article you posted explicitly stated that they had clearly agreed, in advance, there would be no unprotected sex. They were fooling around a bit, as you say, and he penetrated her as you say. That is rape, clear as daylight. The fact you don't get that is appalling.

I'll tell you why I have sympathy for him.
It's an example which happened to me a few years ago. I'd been seeing a girl and we broke up, a few weeks later we run into each other, get chatting, I end up back at her place. She says "we're not having sex". We go to bed, one thing leads to the other and we end up having sex. She has never explicitly given consent but it has been implied in the heat of the moment.
She could easily have said the minute we started "Mayo4Sam you're raping me".
I can't be the only one here that has been in this situation or one where you meet a young one out who says "you can come home with me but we're not having sex" only to end up having sex. By the judgement above that's rape

If she called you by your screen name on an internet forum its no wonder it didn't work out!  ::)

more likely to say mayo4sam  you take a long time to come dont you
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: theskull1 on March 29, 2018, 01:01:20 PM
Time to lawyer up  :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-gu6s0eGOk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-gu6s0eGOk)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Maiden1 on March 29, 2018, 01:08:55 PM
I am not surprised at all the guys got off but to me there was a lot of inconsistencies in the guys stories as well as the girls.

DF seeing Olding getting oral and not looking like it was forced, I don't think any other verdict other than not guilty could be reached.
Jackson hammered and jet-lagged from coming home from South Africa not being able to get it up is plausible.
McIlroy saying he had sex with the girl and no one else saying this happened (not even the girl) is very hard to work out other than being a weird way of muddying the waters on getting done for exposure.
Harrison meeting the guys the next day and not mentioning at all that the girl from the night before was in bits in the taxi and had texted him that morning claiming 'what happened was non consensual' is very hard to believe.  In my experience if anyone at all got layed the night before someone would be looking details or there would at least be a bit of slagging.  What where the guys talk about over coffee? how well Northern Ireland played?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 01:12:55 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 29, 2018, 12:59:15 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:47:32 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 29, 2018, 07:03:40 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:15:10 AM
Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him

The article you posted explicitly stated that they had clearly agreed, in advance, there would be no unprotected sex. They were fooling around a bit, as you say, and he penetrated her as you say. That is rape, clear as daylight. The fact you don't get that is appalling.

I'll tell you why I have sympathy for him.
It's an example which happened to me a few years ago. I'd been seeing a girl and we broke up, a few weeks later we run into each other, get chatting, I end up back at her place. She says "we're not having sex". We go to bed, one thing leads to the other and we end up having sex. She has never explicitly given consent but it has been implied in the heat of the moment.
She could easily have said the minute we started "Mayo4Sam you're raping me".
I can't be the only one here that has been in this situation or one where you meet a young one out who says "you can come home with me but we're not having sex" only to end up having sex. By the judgement above that's rape

I dont agree with this M4S. To me its obvious there was consent in both the situations above and It was reasonable in both situations to assume consent had been given.  The woman is entitled to change her mind from a No to a Yes just as much as from a Yes to a No at any point.

The situation with the guy with no condom is different, he was doing something he knew she would not have consented to (and was a complete sc**bag for doing so by the way and I have no sympathy for him).
I disagree with you here. In both cases the guy is presuming that consent has been implied to be given through what is going on
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 29, 2018, 01:17:50 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 01:12:55 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 29, 2018, 12:59:15 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:47:32 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 29, 2018, 07:03:40 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on March 29, 2018, 12:15:10 AM
Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him

The article you posted explicitly stated that they had clearly agreed, in advance, there would be no unprotected sex. They were fooling around a bit, as you say, and he penetrated her as you say. That is rape, clear as daylight. The fact you don't get that is appalling.

I'll tell you why I have sympathy for him.
It's an example which happened to me a few years ago. I'd been seeing a girl and we broke up, a few weeks later we run into each other, get chatting, I end up back at her place. She says "we're not having sex". We go to bed, one thing leads to the other and we end up having sex. She has never explicitly given consent but it has been implied in the heat of the moment.
She could easily have said the minute we started "Mayo4Sam you're raping me".
I can't be the only one here that has been in this situation or one where you meet a young one out who says "you can come home with me but we're not having sex" only to end up having sex. By the judgement above that's rape

I dont agree with this M4S. To me its obvious there was consent in both the situations above and It was reasonable in both situations to assume consent had been given.  The woman is entitled to change her mind from a No to a Yes just as much as from a Yes to a No at any point.

The situation with the guy with no condom is different, he was doing something he knew she would not have consented to (and was a complete sc**bag for doing so by the way and I have no sympathy for him).
I disagree with you here. In both cases the guy is presuming that consent has been implied to be given through what is going on

Fair enough. If this thread proved anything its that there are is a hell of a lot of grey areas around the legalities of consent, in particular whether one party could have "reasonable belief that consent has been given"
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on March 29, 2018, 02:37:36 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 29, 2018, 12:18:42 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 29, 2018, 11:15:15 AM
The problem with social media and especially twitter is that it actively encourages you to follow with people of similar beliefs. What happens is that your newsfeed becomes dominated with posts from people whos beliefs and values fit your your own narrative, which then becomes fact in your eyes. This was clear in the shock and horror in some circles that they were found not guilty. These people had a pre-determined notion in their heads that the 4 were unquestionably guilty, because everything they read on social media concurred with this belief.

I personally would try to follow a few people who don't share my beliefs to get a bit of perspective on things and as such there's a lot of #ibelileveher stuff on my timeline. It's very hard not to type something but as has been said if you weigh in at all you're labelled a rape apologist etc. it's just not worth it!

Likewise although eventually I just block Ewan MacKenna for being a c**k.

This #Ibelieveher is all over my timeline and if you were judge Ireland purely on this we we would not reflect well.

Our female population seem on the majority to refuse to recognise the juries decision and anyone that points this out is a rape apologist or a troll. We have societal insecurities around class and the law is there to protect the rich. We then a sizeable portion of ignorance, racism and sexism.

Anyhow for me pornography has been normalised, I remember at 14 seeing my first porn and being disgusted, I was completely innocent, for the porn generation however this is how they expect sex to be. Having spent the best part of 12 years coaching young men the language, the comments in their Whatsapp group were to be expected but I don't judge them on it, there is a peer pressure, they would also have their own colloquialisms. Individually you find the vast majority of young men are thoughtful and respectful towards women but the pack mentality, a mentality that is cultured by clubs and coaches to bring a togetherness, can take over and lads want to be the alpha male, the top shagger, the best fighter, the best drinker, the man, the hero, the legend. It's only through education that you try and change the mentality. And it starts at home, in the classroom and on the pitch. Zero tolerance towards sexism, zero tolerance towards racism, zero tolerance to homophobia/gay slander. You teach respect and you show respect.

Politicians are a reflection of us as a society, our laws reflect us, social media is a reflection of us. It's easy sit on the sideline and say that's not me but it is and every time we ignore a sexist comment or a racist or homophobic comments we are just feeding our societal issues. Change starts at home, when I parent I want my children to be better than me, when I coach I want my players not to be just good players but better people.   

This was on OTB this morning around consent and it's definitely something I will be showing my daughter and son.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: theskull1 on March 29, 2018, 02:56:49 PM
Generally speaking ..... theres not enough acceptance (certainly on social media) that both parties need to take ownership of risk when it comes to their engagement with the opposite sex. Every normal physical relationship involves nudging things along with non verbal cues. You try to read the signals rather than kill the vibe with constant explicit requests to move to the next base so to speak. With copius amounts of drink, I'd say its very easy for non verbal signals to be misread and confusion to reign. Such a wooly area when verbal communication isn't used. This case was the very extreme end of this it would seem.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:00:13 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 29, 2018, 02:56:49 PM
Generally speaking ..... theres not enough acceptance (certainly on social media) that both parties need to take ownership of risk when it comes to their engagement with the opposite sex. Every normal physical relationship involves nudging things along with non verbal cues. You try to read the signals rather than kill the vibe with constant explicit requests to move to the next base so to speak. With copius amounts of drink, I'd say its very easy for non verbal signals to be misread and confusion to reign. Such a wooly area when verbal communication isn't used. This case was the very extreme end of this it would seem.

But was it the extreme of it skull or was it because much of it was played out in the media and it had high profile names?

Have no idea but interesting to see if many other rape cases have a he said/she said scenario
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 29, 2018, 03:09:58 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 29, 2018, 02:37:36 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 29, 2018, 12:18:42 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 29, 2018, 11:15:15 AM
The problem with social media and especially twitter is that it actively encourages you to follow with people of similar beliefs. What happens is that your newsfeed becomes dominated with posts from people whos beliefs and values fit your your own narrative, which then becomes fact in your eyes. This was clear in the shock and horror in some circles that they were found not guilty. These people had a pre-determined notion in their heads that the 4 were unquestionably guilty, because everything they read on social media concurred with this belief.

I personally would try to follow a few people who don't share my beliefs to get a bit of perspective on things and as such there's a lot of #ibelileveher stuff on my timeline. It's very hard not to type something but as has been said if you weigh in at all you're labelled a rape apologist etc. it's just not worth it!

Likewise although eventually I just block Ewan MacKenna for being a c**k.

This #Ibelieveher is all over my timeline and if you were judge Ireland purely on this we we would not reflect well.

Our female population seem on the majority to refuse to recognise the juries decision and anyone that points this out is a rape apologist or a troll. We have societal insecurities around class and the law is there to protect the rich. We then a sizeable portion of ignorance, racism and sexism.

Anyhow for me pornography has been normalised, I remember at 14 seeing my first porn and being disgusted, I was completely innocent, for the porn generation however this is how they expect sex to be. Having spent the best part of 12 years coaching young men the language, the comments in their Whatsapp group were to be expected but I don't judge them on it, there is a peer pressure, they would also have their own colloquialisms. Individually you find the vast majority of young men are thoughtful and respectful towards women but the pack mentality, a mentality that is cultured by clubs and coaches to bring a togetherness, can take over and lads want to be the alpha male, the top shagger, the best fighter, the best drinker, the man, the hero, the legend. It's only through education that you try and change the mentality. And it starts at home, in the classroom and on the pitch. Zero tolerance towards sexism, zero tolerance towards racism, zero tolerance to homophobia/gay slander. You teach respect and you show respect.

Politicians are a reflection of us as a society, our laws reflect us, social media is a reflection of us. It's easy sit on the sideline and say that's not me but it is and every time we ignore a sexist comment or a racist or homophobic comments we are just feeding our societal issues. Change starts at home, when I parent I want my children to be better than me, when I coach I want my players not to be just good players but better people.   

This was on OTB this morning around consent and it's definitely something I will be showing my daughter and son.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8)
The tea analogy doesn't work in Ireland

Initial tea refusal should be accompanied by the words: No thanks, I'm grand. And the second refusal should be accompanied by the words: Noo thanks, sure I'm grand
The third asking is followed by a yes

You couldn't run sexual relations on the basis of Irish tea etiquette
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: theskull1 on March 29, 2018, 03:11:01 PM
I'd be fairly certain plenty of wild and crazy goings on have happened between multiple adults in the wee hours after a night out on the drink. I'd still define such frivolity as extreme even if everyone was happy with the arrangement (i.e they woke up the next day and accepted their willingness at the time to take part in the proceedings) . Just my definition though
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 03:12:17 PM
 ;D Very true seafoid.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: passedit on March 29, 2018, 03:27:01 PM
Worth a read below.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ireland-ulster-rugby-rape-case-not-guilty-brendan-kelly-qc-victim-a8278216.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ireland-ulster-rugby-rape-case-not-guilty-brendan-kelly-qc-victim-a8278216.html)

QuoteThere's a commonly quoted statistic regarding rape allegations. Of all those reported to the police, only 7.5 per cent result in a conviction.

That's not to say that more don't lead to guilty verdict, at least in the minds of many. It's just that this verdict tends to fall on the head of the woman making the accusation.

Today saw Ireland and Ulster rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding found not guilty of raping a woman in June 2016. To some, such a verdict is instantly flipped: not guilty for them must mean guilty for their accuser. In legal terms – and in terms of pure logic – this isn't true (and there are no signs that the complainant is about to be charged with perverting the course of justice).

This hasn't stopped the men's lawyers from complaining about lives being blighted by "false claims", nor held back the Twitter mob. "I hope this bitch gets locked up for trying to ruin the lives of these lads" declares one commentator, while another bemoans "another career ruined by some fame-chasing bitch" (clearly oblivious to the MRA rules which state one must be in favour of a complainant's name being made public).

The response is disappointing, but not necessarily surprising. After all, who has really been on trial here? Whose guilt, morally if not legally, have we really been trying to prove? Watching the trial progress, it seemed to me the question was never "are these men rapists?", but always "is this woman a liar?"

Such a framing of the situation – both inside the courtroom and beyond – matters a great deal, if not for the verdict itself, then for the future wellbeing of the accuser and any woman who wishes to make a similar complaint. If our focus is not on men's propensity to commit acts of sexual violence, but on women's propensity to lie, we perpetuate a culture in which women's testimonies are seen as unreliable before a word has been said.

Of course, many words were said at the trial of Jackson and Olding. According to the defence, the complainant only took the morning after pill in order to "run the lie of the classic rape victim". She may have said she froze when the attack took place, but as Brendan Kelly QC put it, "what does frozen mean? Is it one of the lies? Is it a lie deployed to explain what happened?" (No, Mr Kelly. "Frozen" means not being able to move because you're terrified or in shock. Happy to help).

It's not that Kelly's questioning of the complainant's account tells us anything about whether the final verdict was correct or otherwise. Nonetheless, such a wilful dismissal of the potential effect of trauma reinforces the sense that we're not supposed to see the complainant as a potential victim at all. On the contrary, she's the suspect.

Ulster and Ireland rugby players found not guilty in rape trial

In Down Girl, the philosopher Kate Manne argues that when a woman is cast as "playing the victim", it's not just a case of her not being believed. For women, even claiming the status of victim is a transgressive act: "What she's doing may stand out not because she's claiming more than her due but because we're not used to women claiming their due in these contexts. Women are expected to provide an audience for dominant men's victim narratives, providing moral care, listening, sympathy and soothing".

This argument makes sense to me in relation to the treatment of women in rape trials. Rationally we must know it is ludicrous to cast women who accuse famous men of assault as money-grabbing and fame-hungry (where are these fame-hungry accusers? Usually in hiding). But still they are suspected of something. It can't just be that rape is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. It can't just be that beliefs about consent and entitlement differ and need updating. No, we must cast the accuser in the role, if not of outright villain, then of transgressor.

According to Claire Waxman, London's first victims' commissioner, more and more rape complainants are withdrawing from prosecutions due to demands for information held on computers, mobile phones and social media. While some information can clearly be relevant, other details – such as childhood histories of mental health problems – are being sought out in what can only be an attempt to discredit the complainant as a person.

When we reach this point, we need to ask ourselves who is really being put in the dock. Is our response to a rape complainant – not just during the trial, but afterwards, regardless of the verdict – really based on any certainty of what happened? Or are we indulging in fantasies of retribution against women who step out of line by speaking up in the first place? If so, we need to take a step back. No one was found guilty today. Those railing against "false accusers" may need to look closer to home
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions deserved.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 29, 2018, 03:51:03 PM
I wonder if there is any slanderous ranting at these rallies directed towards Jackson and the 3 other innocent victims that could end up with court appearances for some of those in attendance.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 29, 2018, 03:52:21 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 29, 2018, 03:51:03 PM
I wonder if there is any slanderous ranting at these rallies that could end up with court appearances for some of those in attendance.

What did you hear? :P
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on March 29, 2018, 03:59:05 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going to let you tear me a new one again.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions deserved.

How many rallies have been held to make martyrs of them?

How many newspaper inches have been dedicated to making martyrs of them?

How many radio shows have provided balanced views from both sides since the decision came out?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 29, 2018, 04:04:11 PM
I happened to be going into Laganside today when a sizeable vocal protest was ongoing. I noted as I was leaving someone who looked like they might be an organiser removing all the posters from the gate before dumping them on the grass nearby.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 04:04:39 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions deserved.

How many rallies have been held to make martyrs of them?

How many newspaper inches have been dedicated to making martyrs of them?

How many radio shows have provided balanced views from both sides since the decision came out?

How many knuckle draggers have come to their defence on social media?

The fact the more considered opinions of the media largely aren't crying about the plights of the players tells you more about the facts of this case and the problems with how rape is litigated than it does about some perceived and imagined feminist conspiracy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 04:06:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

Did you call it 100% totally wrong or did the 11 impartial jurors do so.

You back the wrong f**king horse and are making excuses now.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 04:07:44 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 04:06:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

Did you call it 100% totally wrong or did the 11 impartial jurors do so.

You back the wrong f**king horse and are making excuses now.

You'd want to read what my first post in this thread after the verdict was, and then delete your post lightning quick.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 29, 2018, 04:09:13 PM
It would be very difficult to make martyrs out of these guys.  While the right legal verdict may have been reached I don't detect a huge amount of sympathy for them from any quarter.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 29, 2018, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 29, 2018, 04:04:11 PM
I happened to be going into Laganside today when a sizeable vocal protest was ongoing. I noted as I was leaving someone who looked like they might be an organiser removing all the posters from the gate before dumping them on the grass nearby.

#ihatelitter
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 04:15:02 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 04:07:44 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 04:06:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

Did you call it 100% totally wrong or did the 11 impartial jurors do so.

You back the wrong f**king horse and are making excuses now.

You'd want to read what my first post in this thread after the verdict was, and then delete your post lightning quick.

why would i want to. ???

you've spouted shite here for 10 weeks on this topic of which you had as little understanding as most online as we weren't attending the trial. You accused anyone who had the temerity to suggest a not guilty verdict as being rape apologists. 4 innocent men were found not guilty by their peers in a court of law, not a Diplock court.....

the best thing you could do is f**k off into the sunset with that other gobshite Fearon
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 04:15:42 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 04:04:39 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions deserved.

How many rallies have been held to make martyrs of them?

How many newspaper inches have been dedicated to making martyrs of them?

How many radio shows have provided balanced views from both sides since the decision came out?

How many knuckle draggers have come to their defence on social media?

The fact the more considered opinions of the media largely aren't crying about the plights of the players tells you more about the facts of this case and the problems with how rape is litigated than it does about some perceived and imagined feminist conspiracy.

No, the reason no one is coming out in the media to even give a balanced view is because they will get castigated and torn apart.

Careers will be in tatters and they will be labelled as rape apologists such is the hysteria in some quarters from a jury finding the 4 not guilty
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Therealdonald on March 29, 2018, 04:16:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

Syferus, give it up man. In the eyes of the law they have not been proven guilty. You are innocent of the crime untill proven guilty, so by process of elimination they are INNOCENT. You or I may not agree with the jurors but that is is the facet. They might have raped her, OJ might have killed her, they were found found not guilty i.e the jury couldn't prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. After the trial they are and were able to walk down the streets as free INNOCENT men. No wringing of words, changes that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 29, 2018, 04:34:40 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 29, 2018, 04:04:11 PM
I happened to be going into Laganside today when a sizeable vocal protest was ongoing. I noted as I was leaving someone who looked like they might be an organiser removing all the posters from the gate before dumping them on the grass nearby.

Quickly onto the next social media cause célèbre
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 29, 2018, 04:47:24 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 04:06:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

Did you call it 100% totally wrong or did the 11 impartial jurors do so.

You back the wrong f**king horse and are making excuses now.

Bit of a strange analogy  :-\

You think this is about picking the"winner"?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 29, 2018, 04:59:22 PM
I can't think of something that more sums up an attitude of not taking sexual violence seriously than somebody attempting to score points off somebody else on the internet for "backing the wrong horse", like a ten year old Manchester United supporter trying to goad a classmate who supports Liverpool because Manchester United won 2-1.

It's absolutely weird.

And for so many men across the internet, that's been their main interest in this trial - to use it to goad women or anybody who believes the complainant told the truth, or feminists, or "feminazis" as they'd probably call them.


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 05:03:36 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 04:15:02 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 04:07:44 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 04:06:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

Did you call it 100% totally wrong or did the 11 impartial jurors do so.

You back the wrong f**king horse and are making excuses now.

You'd want to read what my first post in this thread after the verdict was, and then delete your post lightning quick.

why would i want to. ???

you've spouted shite here for 10 weeks on this topic of which you had as little understanding as most online as we weren't attending the trial. You accused anyone who had the temerity to suggest a not guilty verdict as being rape apologists. 4 innocent men were found not guilty by their peers in a court of law, not a Diplock court.....

the best thing you could do is f**k off into the sunset with that other gobshite Fearon

Doubling down on your misguided anger I see.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 05:05:16 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 29, 2018, 04:47:24 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 04:06:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

Did you call it 100% totally wrong or did the 11 impartial jurors do so.

You back the wrong f**king horse and are making excuses now.

Bit of a strange analogy  :-\

You think this is about picking the"winner"?

the poster i referred to was so absolute in his opinion it was all about he being correct and those who disagreed being rape apologists.

so for that poster yes it was about being proven right which hasnt happened so winning is appropriate for the discussion, not for the case itself
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 05:07:00 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 05:05:16 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 29, 2018, 04:47:24 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 04:06:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

Did you call it 100% totally wrong or did the 11 impartial jurors do so.

You back the wrong f**king horse and are making excuses now.

Bit of a strange analogy  :-\

You think this is about picking the"winner"?

the poster i referred to was so absolute in his opinion it was all about he being correct and those who disagreed being rape apologists.

so for that poster yes it was about being proven right which hasnt happened so winning is appropriate for the discussion, not for the case itself

Still going. When you realise you've missed your mark so wholly you're free to PM me your apology.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 05:07:33 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 29, 2018, 04:59:22 PM
I can't think of something that more sums up an attitude of not taking sexual violence seriously than somebody attempting to score points off somebody else on the internet for "backing the wrong horse", like a ten year old Manchester United supporter trying to goad a classmate who supports Liverpool because Manchester United won 2-1.

It's absolutely weird.

And for so many men across the internet, that's been their main interest in this trial - to use it to goad women or anybody who believes the complainant told the truth, or feminists, or "feminazis" as they'd probably call them.

I believed the men to be guilty.

I am referring to the antics of this poster and some others who couldnt see the alternative opinion at all and used derisory terminology like rape apologists to try and hammer home their own preferences. I have no doubt if said poster decided at the start to "back" the defendants he would be gloating now
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 29, 2018, 05:08:27 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 05:05:16 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 29, 2018, 04:47:24 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 04:06:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

Did you call it 100% totally wrong or did the 11 impartial jurors do so.

You back the wrong f**king horse and are making excuses now.

Bit of a strange analogy  :-\

You think this is about picking the"winner"?

the poster i referred to was so absolute in his opinion it was all about he being correct and those who disagreed being rape apologists.

so for that poster yes it was about being proven right which hasnt happened so winning is appropriate for the discussion, not for the case itself

Congrats on your big win. You must be delighted.  ???
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 05:11:53 PM
Gallsman,

read one post up. I personally called the outcome totally the opposite of the jury, but was calling it like everyone else here on 2nd hand reports........

not winning or losing but the self righteous who put down everyone who predicted this outcome have their gearboxes destroyed trying to get into reverse
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 05:28:08 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 05:11:53 PM
Gallsman,

read one post up. I personally called the outcome totally the opposite of the jury, but was calling it like everyone else here on 2nd hand reports........

not winning or losing but the self righteous who put down everyone who predicted this outcome have their gearboxes destroyed trying to get into reverse

For someone tearing up at the eyes at what I said you really didn't actually read it, did you?

I've been very critical of the way rape trials are handled and very cynical about what the likely outcome was.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 29, 2018, 05:46:05 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 05:28:08 PM
Quote from: Orchard park on March 29, 2018, 05:11:53 PM
Gallsman,

read one post up. I personally called the outcome totally the opposite of the jury, but was calling it like everyone else here on 2nd hand reports........

not winning or losing but the self righteous who put down everyone who predicted this outcome have their gearboxes destroyed trying to get into reverse

For someone tearing up at the eyes at what I said you really didn't actually read it, did you?

I've been very critical of the way rape trials are handled and very cynical about what the likely outcome was.

Syf

Here is a super Dermot Earley goal

https://twitter.com/officialgaa/status/978925414629433345

Maybe you should stick to commenting on football for a while
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on March 29, 2018, 05:48:37 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 29, 2018, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 29, 2018, 04:04:11 PM
I happened to be going into Laganside today when a sizeable vocal protest was ongoing. I noted as I was leaving someone who looked like they might be an organiser removing all the posters from the gate before dumping them on the grass nearby.

#ihatelitter

#ibelieveyou
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on March 29, 2018, 05:52:22 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 29, 2018, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 29, 2018, 09:41:23 AM
David, do you know if the definition is different in the ROI jurisdiction?

It is as I know it can be committed recklessly in the republic. I would need to check but I also don't think consent is defined in statute although that may have changed in recent years.

I think it's along the lines of a man commits rape if he has intercourse with a person who did not consent and he either knew this or was reckless. I'm no expert though and I would need to do a little research.

No need bud.  We've plenty of experts on here apparently...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 05:59:47 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

I have just read most of the posts that you made to this thread and you made no reference to why you argue that she was raped apart from repeating that she was telling the truth and this was a cover up by all the lads involved and the system is wrong. You repeatedly played the man and called the defendants rapists and i think at least 1 reference to a brutal gang rape. You said she was more consistent then they were but when anyone pointed out her inconsistencies you simply said something akin the lines of well what would you expect as she was traumatised. When anyone disagreed with you, the likes of MR2 or Asap Mor, you simply played the man and tried to belittle them and took a superiority complex approach and were very condescending to them. When people clearly called you out, like I did and others, for example over the whole idea of replacing the juror, you point blank refused to reply.  Your refusal to stand over why you think they were brutal rapists weakens your position. You have fallen back on the default that they may be not guilty but they are not  innocent yet but you refuse to acknowledge that you're on the wrong side of the law with you approach and you are absolutely no different to the #ibelieveher fundamentalist ones. For what it's worth I have spoken to people who work for the prosecution services and they were not even sure that they were guilty so if they were convinced how the hell could they convince a jury. The evidence was reflected in the outcome. They are innocent in the eyes of the law and that is a fact. In your eyes they are not and that is an opinion. Big difference   
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 06:05:02 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 05:59:47 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

I have just read most of the posts that you made to this thread and you made no reference to why you argue that she was raped apart from repeating that she was telling the truth and this was a cover up by all the lads involved and the system is wrong. You repeatedly played the man and called the defendants rapists and i think at least 1 reference to a brutal gang rape. You said she was more consistent then they were but when anyone pointed out her inconsistencies you simply said something akin the lines of well what would you expect as she was traumatised. When anyone disagreed with you, the likes of MR2 or Asap Mor, you simply played the man and tried to belittle them and took a superiority complex approach and were very condescending to them. When people clearly called you out, like I did and others, for example over the whole idea of replacing the juror, you point blank refused to reply.  Your refusal to stand over why you think they were brutal rapists weakens your position. You have fallen back on the default that they may be not guilty but they are not  innocent yet but you refuse to acknowledge that you're on the wrong side of the law with you approach and you are absolutely no different to the #ibelieveher fundamentalist ones. For what it's worth I have spoken to people who work for the prosecution services and they were not even sure that they were guilty so if they were convinced how the hell could they convince a jury. The evidence was reflected in the outcome. They are innocent in the eyes of the law and that is a fact. In your eyes they are not and that is an opinion. Big difference

The eyes of the justice system and what the evidence suggests are two very different things, as the reaction shows you. No one has the responsibility to treat the four defendants as totally innocent if they do not feel they are just because the threshold for criminal conviction was not reached.

To pretend you too have no biases in this case would be a lie. At its core this is a very emotive issue. It's all about being up front about them and those who try to pretend they are simply objective and detached tended to be the people most obviously biased against the woman, and by extension rape victims in general. And given this is GAABoard, with its incredibly consistent ability to misread what is said, I'm not saying you are one of those.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on March 29, 2018, 07:39:48 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 06:05:02 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 05:59:47 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

I have just read most of the posts that you made to this thread and you made no reference to why you argue that she was raped apart from repeating that she was telling the truth and this was a cover up by all the lads involved and the system is wrong. You repeatedly played the man and called the defendants rapists and i think at least 1 reference to a brutal gang rape. You said she was more consistent then they were but when anyone pointed out her inconsistencies you simply said something akin the lines of well what would you expect as she was traumatised. When anyone disagreed with you, the likes of MR2 or Asap Mor, you simply played the man and tried to belittle them and took a superiority complex approach and were very condescending to them. When people clearly called you out, like I did and others, for example over the whole idea of replacing the juror, you point blank refused to reply.  Your refusal to stand over why you think they were brutal rapists weakens your position. You have fallen back on the default that they may be not guilty but they are not  innocent yet but you refuse to acknowledge that you're on the wrong side of the law with you approach and you are absolutely no different to the #ibelieveher fundamentalist ones. For what it's worth I have spoken to people who work for the prosecution services and they were not even sure that they were guilty so if they were convinced how the hell could they convince a jury. The evidence was reflected in the outcome. They are innocent in the eyes of the law and that is a fact. In your eyes they are not and that is an opinion. Big difference

The eyes of the justice system and what the evidence suggests are two very different things, as the reaction shows you. No one has the responsibility to treat the four defendants as totally innocent if they do not feel they are just because the threshold for criminal conviction was not reached.

To pretend you too have no biases in this case would be a lie. At its core this is a very emotive issue. It's all about being up front about them and those who try to pretend they are simply objective and detached tended to be the people most obviously biased against the woman, and by extension rape victims in general. And given this is GAABoard, with its incredibly consistent ability to misread what is said, I'm not saying you are one of those.

What about the eyes of the 3 women who found the defendants not guilty?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Aughafad on March 29, 2018, 07:50:53 PM
With all the talk on here regarding the 4 guys being found not guilty and a lot of so called experts jumping on the "they weren't found innocent" line, I found this response from a UK based solicitor to be interesting
From a lawyer's blog:

When I am interviewing potential clients, I hear on a regular basis that "I'm innocent". It goes in one ear and out the other with me. I don't care if you're innocent. I care if you are "Not Guilty". So what is the difference? If you are innocent, you are absolutely without fault in all aspects. You are a victim of a terrible injustice and everyone should give you their pity. Congratulations, you have it! But you still face all the consequences of being charged with a criminal offense. If you are not guilty, you perhaps did not do the crime, [or] there was no crime, [or] they arrested the wrong person, [or] they could not prove their case; any one or combination of the above can produce the "not guilty" verdict.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitey on March 29, 2018, 08:14:28 PM
So after 200 odd pages what are the lessons to be learned from this sorry episode?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: playwiththewind1st on March 29, 2018, 08:24:34 PM
That there's a load of ould garbage spouted on here?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on March 29, 2018, 08:34:40 PM
We'll look back and remember that the GAA Board helped change laws about rape trials here.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on March 29, 2018, 08:56:39 PM
I'm sure we can all think of someone who fits the bill.

https://theulsterfry.com/featured/ni-unemployment-solved-as-everyone-now-qualified-barrister/
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 29, 2018, 09:42:27 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 05:59:47 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 29, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 29, 2018, 03:42:16 PM
Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

I have just read most of the posts that you made to this thread and you made no reference to why you argue that she was raped apart from repeating that she was telling the truth and this was a cover up by all the lads involved and the system is wrong. You repeatedly played the man and called the defendants rapists and i think at least 1 reference to a brutal gang rape. You said she was more consistent then they were but when anyone pointed out her inconsistencies you simply said something akin the lines of well what would you expect as she was traumatised. When anyone disagreed with you, the likes of MR2 or Asap Mor, you simply played the man and tried to belittle them and took a superiority complex approach and were very condescending to them. When people clearly called you out, like I did and others, for example over the whole idea of replacing the juror, you point blank refused to reply.  Your refusal to stand over why you think they were brutal rapists weakens your position. You have fallen back on the default that they may be not guilty but they are not  innocent yet but you refuse to acknowledge that you're on the wrong side of the law with you approach and you are absolutely no different to the #ibelieveher fundamentalist ones. For what it's worth I have spoken to people who work for the prosecution services and they were not even sure that they were guilty so if they were convinced how the hell could they convince a jury. The evidence was reflected in the outcome. They are innocent in the eyes of the law and that is a fact. In your eyes they are not and that is an opinion. Big difference
Thank you bcb. Very well put as usual and I'd echo those who've  said it's been an education reading your's and David's posts on here.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: fearbrags on March 29, 2018, 09:58:36 PM
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/martina-devlin-twotier-morality-means-girls-face-an-impossible-list-of-dos-and-donts-36757069.html
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 29, 2018, 10:29:04 PM
Quote from: fearbrags on March 29, 2018, 09:58:36 PM
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/martina-devlin-twotier-morality-means-girls-face-an-impossible-list-of-dos-and-donts-36757069.html

Dear lord!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: square_ball on March 29, 2018, 10:32:17 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 29, 2018, 10:29:04 PM
Quote from: fearbrags on March 29, 2018, 09:58:36 PM
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/martina-devlin-twotier-morality-means-girls-face-an-impossible-list-of-dos-and-donts-36757069.html

Dear lord!!!

How does that nonsense get published??

And just to echo the sentiments towards bcb and David McKeown - great work lads. You can set up the Gaaboard Official Legal Thread when you get a chance!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hectic on March 29, 2018, 10:43:45 PM
Yeah I have found this whole episode sickening.

As far as the trial is concerned I always hoped the correct decision would be arrived at without knowing what the correct decision is and that remains the case.

But it is society that has well and truly sickened me. Those who 'knew' what happened that night and have been spouting off accordingly. There is a victim or victims here but for a lot of people they have ruled on the basis of the stuff floating around in their own heads.

The bad side of human nature on full display.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 29, 2018, 10:50:36 PM
Saw a bit on the news there with the #ibelieveher crowd outside Laganside, usual crowd of headers, pink hair "bohemian" types.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 29, 2018, 10:55:08 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 29, 2018, 10:50:36 PM
Saw a bit on the news there with the #ibelieveher crowd outside Laganside, usual crowd of headers, pink hair "bohemian" types.

I'm pretty sure they'd think you're just as much of a header.

Demeaning a group en masse because you disagree with them is extremely stupid. You haven't a clue about who they are or what their lives are like.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 29, 2018, 10:57:56 PM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on March 29, 2018, 05:52:22 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 29, 2018, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 29, 2018, 09:41:23 AM
David, do you know if the definition is different in the ROI jurisdiction?

It is as I know it can be committed recklessly in the republic. I would need to check but I also don't think consent is defined in statute although that may have changed in recent years.

I think it's along the lines of a man commits rape if he has intercourse with a person who did not consent and he either knew this or was reckless. I'm no expert though and I would need to do a little research.

No need bud.  We've plenty of experts on here apparently...

Just two it seems.. so I wouldn't take anyone else's view on it as a true reflection of how a court case actually goes to be fair, an opinion (rightly or wrongly is just that) will not persuade most people who have their own agenda, regardless of the facts
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: trileacman on March 29, 2018, 11:04:37 PM
I'm sorry if you disagree with the result but I don't understand how anyone can advocate a system where the IP version of events are not challenged in a court of law. There's a lot of shite that she shouldn't be questioned for so long. Not 3 weeks ago everyone of this guardian reading crowd were celebrating how well she acquitted herself in the witness box. The IP version of events must be scrutinised as closely as the defendants if their is to be any sense of fairness or equality within the law.

There's this bizarre argument out there that seems to suggest that in cases of rape the IP's testimony should be above reproach.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 29, 2018, 11:07:30 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 29, 2018, 10:50:36 PM
Saw a bit on the news there with the #ibelieveher crowd outside Laganside, usual crowd of headers, pink hair "bohemian" types.

The flipping vegans, lgbt, tree huggers are always at it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: theskull1 on March 29, 2018, 11:33:36 PM
And now this has all blown over  ::) we can announce that the resident virtue signaller of the year award goes to .......

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on March 30, 2018, 01:03:38 AM
Quote from: square_ball on March 29, 2018, 10:32:17 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 29, 2018, 10:29:04 PM
Quote from: fearbrags on March 29, 2018, 09:58:36 PM
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/martina-devlin-twotier-morality-means-girls-face-an-impossible-list-of-dos-and-donts-36757069.html

Dear lord!!!

How does that nonsense get published??
Are you completely at a loss for common sense  to take on board some of the points made in that article?
Do you think there is no merit for such a rape case to be held in camera, for the complainant  or the accused who were deemed not guilty? That even in a trial where the prosecution case had much more substance, that such an experience for the complainant would be any easier? That such a court experience could be perceived as an off putting ordeal for a complainant?
You don't think people are entitled to have an opinion on the the loutish carry on of the accused?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 02:34:31 AM
Quote from: Main Street on March 30, 2018, 01:03:38 AM
Quote from: square_ball on March 29, 2018, 10:32:17 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 29, 2018, 10:29:04 PM
Quote from: fearbrags on March 29, 2018, 09:58:36 PM
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/martina-devlin-twotier-morality-means-girls-face-an-impossible-list-of-dos-and-donts-36757069.html

Dear lord!!!

How does that nonsense get published??
Are you completely at a loss for common sense  to take on board some of the points made in that article?
Do you think there is no merit for such a rape case to be held in camera, for the complainant  or the accused who were deemed not guilty? That even in a trial where the prosecution case had much more substance, that such an experience for the complainant would be any easier? That such a court experience could be perceived as an off putting ordeal for a complainant?
You don't think people are entitled to have an opinion on the the loutish carry on of the accused?

No, we men must be appalled at all times and keep this feminist uprising down :-\

The people who want to pretend rape and how it is (not) policed and punished isn't a massive issue seem to have used this verdict as a green flag to tee off on anyone critical of the process.

Is it really that hard for people to see beyond their prejudices and look at the human impact? These are your children, your friends, your sisters, your nieces, your wives, your girlfriends. If a rape happened to their loved ones the same people now castigating the woman and the protesters would be at the front of the lynch mob.

Change is never easy it seems.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 30, 2018, 03:44:40 AM
Quote from: Minder on March 29, 2018, 10:50:36 PM
Saw a bit on the news there with the #ibelieveher crowd outside Laganside, usual crowd of headers, pink hair "bohemian" types.
Tge St Patrick's athletic types are worse
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 30, 2018, 07:31:13 AM
Quote from: Main Street on March 30, 2018, 01:03:38 AM
Quote from: square_ball on March 29, 2018, 10:32:17 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 29, 2018, 10:29:04 PM
Quote from: fearbrags on March 29, 2018, 09:58:36 PM
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/martina-devlin-twotier-morality-means-girls-face-an-impossible-list-of-dos-and-donts-36757069.html

Dear lord!!!

How does that nonsense get published??
Are you completely at a loss for common sense  to take on board some of the points made in that article?
Do you think there is no merit for such a rape case to be held in camera, for the complainant  or the accused who were deemed not guilty? That even in a trial where the prosecution case had much more substance, that such an experience for the complainant would be any easier? That such a court experience could be perceived as an off putting ordeal for a complainant?
You don't think people are entitled to have an opinion on the the loutish carry on of the accused?

To be fair MS, that article is a pretty good indication of a lot of what is wrong with the general reporting on rape cases. You would expect it on social media but not in a mainstream newspaper (whatever you think of the Indo). She makes about 3 valid points that you have highlighted but these are lost because the rest of the article is such a crock of shit from her soapbox.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: square_ball on March 30, 2018, 07:43:22 AM
Quote from: Main Street on March 30, 2018, 01:03:38 AM
Quote from: square_ball on March 29, 2018, 10:32:17 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 29, 2018, 10:29:04 PM
Quote from: fearbrags on March 29, 2018, 09:58:36 PM
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/martina-devlin-twotier-morality-means-girls-face-an-impossible-list-of-dos-and-donts-36757069.html

Dear lord!!!

How does that nonsense get published??
Are you completely at a loss for common sense  to take on board some of the points made in that article?
Do you think there is no merit for such a rape case to be held in camera, for the complainant  or the accused who were deemed not guilty? That even in a trial where the prosecution case had much more substance, that such an experience for the complainant would be any easier? That such a court experience could be perceived as an off putting ordeal for a complainant?
You don't think people are entitled to have an opinion on the the loutish carry on of the accused?

I was talking about the whole 'Do and Don't' list crap she spouts.

She makes a few valid points towards the end but in the main it's nonsense and simply fuelling the ongoing trial by social media.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: square_ball on March 30, 2018, 07:44:43 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 02:34:31 AM
Quote from: Main Street on March 30, 2018, 01:03:38 AM
Quote from: square_ball on March 29, 2018, 10:32:17 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 29, 2018, 10:29:04 PM
Quote from: fearbrags on March 29, 2018, 09:58:36 PM
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/martina-devlin-twotier-morality-means-girls-face-an-impossible-list-of-dos-and-donts-36757069.html

Dear lord!!!

How does that nonsense get published??
Are you completely at a loss for common sense  to take on board some of the points made in that article?
Do you think there is no merit for such a rape case to be held in camera, for the complainant  or the accused who were deemed not guilty? That even in a trial where the prosecution case had much more substance, that such an experience for the complainant would be any easier? That such a court experience could be perceived as an off putting ordeal for a complainant?
You don't think people are entitled to have an opinion on the the loutish carry on of the accused?

No, we men must be appalled at all times and keep this feminist uprising down :-\

The people who want to pretend rape and how it is (not) policed and punished isn't a massive issue seem to have used this verdict as a green flag to tee off on anyone critical of the process.

Is it really that hard for people to see beyond their prejudices and look at the human impact? These are your children, your friends, your sisters, your nieces, your wives, your girlfriends. If a rape happened to their loved ones the same people now castigating the woman and the protesters would be at the front of the lynch mob.

Change is never easy it seems.

But a rape didn't occur here!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 07:56:31 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 29, 2018, 11:04:37 PM
I'm sorry if you disagree with the result but I don't understand how anyone can advocate a system where the IP version of events are not challenged in a court of law. There's a lot of shite that she shouldn't be questioned for so long. Not 3 weeks ago everyone of this guardian reading crowd were celebrating how well she acquitted herself in the witness box. The IP version of events must be scrutinised as closely as the defendants if their is to be any sense of fairness or equality within the law.

There's this bizarre argument out there that seems to suggest that in cases of rape the IP's testimony should be above reproach.
Excellent post trileacman. They are angry that the girl was treated very badly and there's no doubt she was but what specific changes would they like to see to the system? It's terrible that in an accusation of gang rape the accuser gets questioned by several barristers but difficult to see a way round it. Anonymity until the verdict would be a good change but I don't think the protesters would want anything that would make life easier for the accused.

Personally I think any protests should be aimed at the police who were no doubt influenced by the prevailing culture in not questioning the accuser during her police interview. If they had, depending on the answers the girl had given, they could have either dropped the case or proceeded with a genuine case of conviction.

Very few  of these people who are so angry about the case seem to accept that the 100% correct verdict was reached by the jury given the evidence. That's not to say with 100% certainty that the girl wasn't raped.

If these protesters want the law changed so that a man has to be able to prove consent (maybe technology could play a role here- some kind of consent app?)beyond a reasonable doubt, that would be a worthwhile debate and if things did go that way at least it would be clear.

The problem with the protests is that they just seem angry and vindictive and will end up being about ruining the next few years of the accused men's lives.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 30, 2018, 08:41:00 AM
One thing that should never happen... The accuser should not have their underwear paraded around a courtroom. I have never heard of anything so demeaning and humiliating.

The proof of consent is an interesting one asal. The proof or disproof of consent would be difficult but to prove or disprove the lack of consent is probably equally so.

To be honest the whole thing is a minefield but I don't see how any other verdict could be reached. Whatever happened who knows and we will never know but things need to be conclusive to be sending peopleto jail.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 30, 2018, 08:47:03 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 29, 2018, 08:44:11 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 29, 2018, 08:26:32 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 05:29:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 05:21:15 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 28, 2018, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:33:08 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 28, 2018, 01:18:36 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 28, 2018, 01:15:23 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2018, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 28, 2018, 12:39:06 PM
This verdict and the way the trial was covered will certainly make any other girl think twice before she reports a rape. That's a very sad situation.

If the girl lied, and this was just something she made up to cover her embarrassment, then she has done a very grave disservice to other women. If that's the case, then I'm delighted the lads got off.

If she was telling the truth, and it just couldn't be proven, then I feel terribly sorry for her.
I think your first sentence is a bit of a stretch. The complainant lied when she first went to the doctor (saying she was vaginally raped by two people). With no other compelling evidence of rape and the eye witness not seeing rape, in her opinion; that seemed to be the key facts. With the judge saying the lie/exaggeration to the doctor is enough to mean all the complainant's evidence should be disregarded (which surprised me, but the judge knows the law) then it would make you question how this ever got to court.

Did that happen??

Of course not. That already had to be clarified on this thread. People see what they want to see.

It's absolutely true!! FFS, why would you say otherwise Seanie?:

This directly from Rosanna Cooney's twitter:
~~~~~~~~~~
Judge:
Whether or not there are inconsistencies in the account the woman gave to the Doctor in the Rowan clinic and the account she gave to the police is a matter for you. If you decide there are inconsistencies you must decide why that must be so.

Trauma is a reason that can explain inconsistencies. If you are satisfied that trauma is the reason then the inconsistencies might not be that important to you.

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the defendants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Without the complainant's evidence there was clearly no case against the defendants. Medical evidence was very much inconclusive.

So as I said before, the jury had to decide whether she lied or made a mistake (as a result of trauma) when making the initial false allegation against Olding. Therefore, the judge was effectively instructing the jury to acquit if they thought she lied to the doctor (given the lack of other evidence).

This is the third or fourth time you've been pulled on this. You're either being deliberately disingenuous (which would make you a p***k as you'd be trying to skew the facts of a rape trial) or you're stupid. I'm not sure which it is but you feel free to decide.

What the judge actually said was that if they felt she lied to the doctor, she was directing them not to rely on that evidence unless they believed there was other independent evidence to support it. Yesterday you went as far at posting the utterly stupid comment that the judge had said, in these circumstances, the lads should "walk free".

I am as entitled to give my opinion on this as anyone, and I have no need for your pomposity.

If you don't think the judge's comments below were not important then you are entitled to that opinion. For me, in my opinion, I think it was absolutely key in the quick decision to acquit the defendants on all charges:

However if you are under the impression that she lied in giving her evidence to the doctor in Rowan or made false allegation, you need to exercise caution as to how you approach her evidence and also whether you can rely on her evidence.

If you think she lied then I am directing you not to rely on her evidence against the defendants.


Yes, we've been over this. She followed that with, as you well know,  "unless you find other independent evidence to support what she says"

So, now we've established that you selectively edit statements from the judge, would you like to explain how you arrived at the conclusion that the judge stated that the three should "walk free"?
Good man. The judge did not say "to support what she says", she said the jury can rely on independent evidence even if they do not rely on the woman's account. And, I did absolutely mention about the independent evidence in an earlier post (and I also said that my opinions are based solely on twitter summaries which can be unreliable), but it seems to me that in reality there was no other independent evidence as the medical evidence was inconclusive at best and the only third party evidence, while she said she saw sex, she said she didn't think she witnessed a rape.

So I won't go down your line of calling people names and saying "You're either being deliberately disingenuous (which would make you a p***k as you'd be trying to skew the facts of a rape trial) or you're stupid", because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But, in my opinion and based on twitter summaries, I honestly think it's hard to believe that anyone thinks there would be independent evidence that would come near convicting the defendants (particularly the 3 in the bedroom).

And therefore, in my opinion, the fact that she initially said that Olding vaginally raped her (and the police even charged him with that before changing to oral rape), together with the judge's closing summary and direction to the jury if they thought it was a deliberate lie, was key in the quick decision (which is the entire point I'm trying to make! :)

My guess is that most of the deliberations of the jury was around Harrison and one of his charges, as hardly any of the case against him depended on the complainant's initial complaint, but there was the driver and text messages, deletions, etc that were certainly worthy of discussion.

So nowhere, absolutely nowhere, at any time, did the judge say "they should walk free" if the jury found that she lied to Dr. Lavery, as you originally claimed?
Jeez Louise, can you not read?

How many times do you need it explained?

I never said "the judge said they should walk free".

IN MY OPINION, when the judge directed the jury to ignore that evidence of the complainant, and given IN MY OPINION, the other evidence was miles short of what would be needed to convict, then IN MY OPINION, the judge's direction was the equivalent of telling the Jury to acquit the defendants (if they believed the lie about Olding vaginally raping her was deliberate rather than error caused by trauma).

Which is why, IN MY OPINION, the jury was so quick to acquit 3 of the defendants, and IN MY OPINION I guess that most of the deliberations were around Harrison and the questions asked by the Jury seemed more likely to involve one of the two Harrison charges. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 30, 2018, 09:10:03 AM
Oh dear, trouble ahead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43594349 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43594349)

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-juror-s-online-comments-are-referred-to-ag-1.3445059 (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-juror-s-online-comments-are-referred-to-ag-1.3445059)

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/two-quizzed-over-claims-woman-at-centre-of-rugby-rape-trial-was-identified-on-social-media-36758441.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/two-quizzed-over-claims-woman-at-centre-of-rugby-rape-trial-was-identified-on-social-media-36758441.html)

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:23:10 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 30, 2018, 09:10:03 AM
Oh dear, trouble ahead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43594349 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43594349)

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-juror-s-online-comments-are-referred-to-ag-1.3445059 (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-juror-s-online-comments-are-referred-to-ag-1.3445059)

Astonishingly poor judgement.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 09:23:28 AM
This is what I was referring to earlier. There's going to be serious pressure put on these jurors, especially in the context of the protests, to explain how they arrived at the conclusions they did so quickly.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

Seanie, don't be like Syf. But that's not what I meant anyway. I meant they'll be getting offers of money etc. to go off the record.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

Seanie, don't be like Syf. But that's not what I meant anyway. I meant they'll be getting offers of money etc. to go off the record.

I think there are more important issue to discuss than jurors being tempted to do something clearly illegal.  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 09:34:17 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

With all respect Seanie these people have had the last 8-9 weeks of their lives consumed by this trial. They have had to listen to all the evidence and make a huge decision on the most high profile trial there has been for years. Now they have this decision being questioned significantly and people organising mass rallies....I can see how they might crack. It doesn't mean that the person should have responded but I can understand why they felt the necessity
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:46:13 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 09:34:17 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

With all respect Seanie these people have had the last 8-9 weeks of their lives consumed by this trial. They have had to listen to all the evidence and make a huge decision on the most high profile trial there has been for years. Now they have this decision being questioned significantly and people organising mass rallies....I can see how they might crack. It doesn't mean that the person should have responded but I can understand why they felt the necessity

I think your sympathy is misplaced. They were clearly directed by the judge on this when discharged. Couldn't have been clearer. To go out 7 hours later and engage online with people shows the most amazing lack of judgement I think it's legitimate to question what else this person heard and ignored.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 30, 2018, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 09:34:17 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

With all respect Seanie these people have had the last 8-9 weeks of their lives consumed by this trial. They have had to listen to all the evidence and make a huge decision on the most high profile trial there has been for years. Now they have this decision being questioned significantly and people organising mass rallies....I can see how they might crack. It doesn't mean that the person should have responded but I can understand why they felt the necessity

I'm not sure bcb1. Strikes me as a pretty stupid thing to do.  Also I think the two people who named the complainant were in the public gallery.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 09:48:43 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:46:13 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 09:34:17 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

With all respect Seanie these people have had the last 8-9 weeks of their lives consumed by this trial. They have had to listen to all the evidence and make a huge decision on the most high profile trial there has been for years. Now they have this decision being questioned significantly and people organising mass rallies....I can see how they might crack. It doesn't mean that the person should have responded but I can understand why they felt the necessity

I think your sympathy is misplaced. They were clearly directed by the judge on this when discharged. Couldn't have been clearer. To go out 7 hours later and engage online with people shows the most amazing lack of judgement I think it's legitimate to question what else this person heard and ignored.

I haven't read the comments as they've been removed. Have you?  It was foolhardy, for all we know the person had a few drinks in them and was pissed off at the way their opinion was being undermined. That doesn't in any way undermine the decision. Don't be grasping for something that isn't there.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 30, 2018, 09:49:29 AM
Probably an All Ireland issue.

https://theulsterfry.com/featured/ni-unemployment-solved-as-everyone-now-qualified-barrister/ (https://theulsterfry.com/featured/ni-unemployment-solved-as-everyone-now-qualified-barrister/)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 09:49:52 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

Seanie, don't be like Syf. But that's not what I meant anyway. I meant they'll be getting offers of money etc. to go off the record.

I think there are more important issue to discuss than jurors being tempted to do something clearly illegal.  ::)

Yeah, because nobody is talking about those other issues.  And with all the anger about the verdict, and your obvious issues with it, I'd have thought you'd have liked to know their reasoning to be honest.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:53:05 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 30, 2018, 09:49:29 AM
Probably an All Ireland issue.

https://theulsterfry.com/featured/ni-unemployment-solved-as-everyone-now-qualified-barrister/ (https://theulsterfry.com/featured/ni-unemployment-solved-as-everyone-now-qualified-barrister/)

Can you explain what you mean by this? Is it in some way directed at me?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:56:03 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 09:48:43 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:46:13 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 09:34:17 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

With all respect Seanie these people have had the last 8-9 weeks of their lives consumed by this trial. They have had to listen to all the evidence and make a huge decision on the most high profile trial there has been for years. Now they have this decision being questioned significantly and people organising mass rallies....I can see how they might crack. It doesn't mean that the person should have responded but I can understand why they felt the necessity

I think your sympathy is misplaced. They were clearly directed by the judge on this when discharged. Couldn't have been clearer. To go out 7 hours later and engage online with people shows the most amazing lack of judgement I think it's legitimate to question what else this person heard and ignored.

I haven't read the comments as they've been removed. Have you?  It was foolhardy, for all we know the person had a few drinks in them and was pissed off at the way their opinion was being undermined. That doesn't in any way undermine the decision. Don't be grasping for something that isn't there.

That's brilliant two sides of the mouth stuff there BCB.

Not sure why you feel the need to make excuses for something that the person themselves was expecting the PSNI to call around about. Anyway, I know you a long time and respect your opinion so we'll not fall out over it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Farrandeelin on March 30, 2018, 09:56:43 AM
It is poor judgement, but again I ask, who exactly were those rallies aiming their anger at? None of them heard all the evidence. The jury did, their decision must be respected.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:59:28 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 09:49:52 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

Seanie, don't be like Syf. But that's not what I meant anyway. I meant they'll be getting offers of money etc. to go off the record.

I think there are more important issue to discuss than jurors being tempted to do something clearly illegal.  ::)

Yeah, because nobody is talking about those other issues.  And with all the anger about the verdict, and your obvious issues with it, I'd have thought you'd have liked to know their reasoning to be honest.

Personally, I've a fair idea why the decision came as it did. I wasn't surprised.

I'm not interested in someone breaking the law (7 hours after being clearly instructed on this) to try and explain it to be honest.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 10:02:04 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:46:13 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 09:34:17 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

With all respect Seanie these people have had the last 8-9 weeks of their lives consumed by this trial. They have had to listen to all the evidence and make a huge decision on the most high profile trial there has been for years. Now they have this decision being questioned significantly and people organising mass rallies....I can see how they might crack. It doesn't mean that the person should have responded but I can understand why they felt the necessity

I think your sympathy is misplaced. They were clearly directed by the judge on this when discharged. Couldn't have been clearer. To go out 7 hours later and engage online with people shows the most amazing lack of judgement I think it's legitimate to question what else this person heard and ignored.

Jesus you clearly are in the TF Seferus mould! It's over the trial was held a decision made, move on. Like you really give a fcuk... thousands of cases nationwide and not a peep. Complete attention seeker
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 10:02:41 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:59:28 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 09:49:52 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

Seanie, don't be like Syf. But that's not what I meant anyway. I meant they'll be getting offers of money etc. to go off the record.

I think there are more important issue to discuss than jurors being tempted to do something clearly illegal.  ::)

Yeah, because nobody is talking about those other issues.  And with all the anger about the verdict, and your obvious issues with it, I'd have thought you'd have liked to know their reasoning to be honest.

Personally, I've a fair idea why the decision came as it did. I wasn't surprised.

I'm not interested in someone breaking the law (7 hours after being clearly instructed on this) to try and explain it to be honest.

Fair enough. I'm not sure what your 'fair idea is'. I wasn't surprised either because of the scope for 'reasonable doubt', but I was surprised at the speed and unanimity of it, and I was also surprised, when David pointed it out, that McIlroy's acquittal basically said they didn't believe the girl.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 30, 2018, 10:02:53 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:53:05 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 30, 2018, 09:49:29 AM
Probably an All Ireland issue.

https://theulsterfry.com/featured/ni-unemployment-solved-as-everyone-now-qualified-barrister/ (https://theulsterfry.com/featured/ni-unemployment-solved-as-everyone-now-qualified-barrister/)

Can you explain what you mean by this? Is it in some way directed at me?

Touchy or what?

Don't flatter yourself that it was aimed at you.

Given how so many on this Board with two notable exceptions have become legal experts over the last two months, the article is fairly apt here as for all those keyboard warriors on social media.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 30, 2018, 10:03:38 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:56:03 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 09:48:43 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:46:13 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 09:34:17 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

With all respect Seanie these people have had the last 8-9 weeks of their lives consumed by this trial. They have had to listen to all the evidence and make a huge decision on the most high profile trial there has been for years. Now they have this decision being questioned significantly and people organising mass rallies....I can see how they might crack. It doesn't mean that the person should have responded but I can understand why they felt the necessity

I think your sympathy is misplaced. They were clearly directed by the judge on this when discharged. Couldn't have been clearer. To go out 7 hours later and engage online with people shows the most amazing lack of judgement I think it's legitimate to question what else this person heard and ignored.

I haven't read the comments as they've been removed. Have you?  It was foolhardy, for all we know the person had a few drinks in them and was pissed off at the way their opinion was being undermined. That doesn't in any way undermine the decision. Don't be grasping for something that isn't there.

That's brilliant two sides of the mouth stuff there BCB.

Not sure why you feel the need to make excuses for something that the person themselves was expecting the PSNI to call around about. Anyway, I know you a long time and respect your opinion so we'll not fall out over it.

The report I read (below) indicated that the juror had listened to what the judge had said and "thought" they had not breached the judge's instruction. Poor judgement yes but I am inclined to take it at face value that they did not think they were doing anything wrong. They had to realise that the media would be all over this so anything they said would be picked up.

Speaking to The Irish Times last night, the juror said they had not commented on anything related to the jury's deliberations, and therefore were not in breach of the judge's order that jurors must not discuss the deliberations.

The juror contacted The Irish Times to say they had been told by the Lord Chief Justice's office to remove the comments. The juror said they then got in touch with Broadsheet which took down the comments.

The Lord Chief Justice's representation also asked them if they had a solicitor, the juror said, adding: "I'm in big trouble."

"I'm sitting here in the kitchen waiting for the cops to arrive, two PSNI constables to arrive and I'm going to be handcuffed away and all I've done is just, I made a posting about, this is why there was a return of not guilty," the juror said.


"When we were all discharged, the 11 of us, the only thing the judge said was, 'Do you know what, go about your everyday life, whatever, business as usual, but don't reveal discussions within the jury room,' and none of that was like part of anything I have said."
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 10:06:16 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 30, 2018, 09:56:43 AM
It is poor judgement, but again I ask, who exactly were those rallies aiming their anger at? None of them heard all the evidence. The jury did, their decision must be respected.

Not having been at any or indeed seen much coverage of them I can't say for certain but I think anyone with any level of cop on can see that for the vast majority it's at the legal system and the way these types of trials are conducted. Others are just angry and need to vent or lash out. Lots of women may have been through something similar or know someone who went though something similar. Only 7.5% of reported cases result in convictions......either we've a massive number of liars out there or the system is grossly unfit for purpose.

I can see how the anger is legitimate and this high profile case has proved to be a lightening rod for an underlying issue that's there a long time.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 10:09:38 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:56:03 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 09:48:43 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:46:13 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 09:34:17 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

With all respect Seanie these people have had the last 8-9 weeks of their lives consumed by this trial. They have had to listen to all the evidence and make a huge decision on the most high profile trial there has been for years. Now they have this decision being questioned significantly and people organising mass rallies....I can see how they might crack. It doesn't mean that the person should have responded but I can understand why they felt the necessity

I think your sympathy is misplaced. They were clearly directed by the judge on this when discharged. Couldn't have been clearer. To go out 7 hours later and engage online with people shows the most amazing lack of judgement I think it's legitimate to question what else this person heard and ignored.

I haven't read the comments as they've been removed. Have you?  It was foolhardy, for all we know the person had a few drinks in them and was pissed off at the way their opinion was being undermined. That doesn't in any way undermine the decision. Don't be grasping for something that isn't there.

That's brilliant two sides of the mouth stuff there BCB.

Not sure why you feel the need to make excuses for something that the person themselves was expecting the PSNI to call around about. Anyway, I know you a long time and respect your opinion so we'll not fall out over it.

Ah seanie how the hell do you get that out of what I said. I simply stated I hadn't read what was said. I asked you do you had and I said it was foolhardy, stupid, unwise, but as tabclear posted the person didn't think they were doing anything wrong. We can not judge what was said as we don't know what was said. We can judge them for making a stupid mistake but given the furore that has surrounded the whole thing perhaps they felt the need to defend themselves as some of the stuff that I've read about the jury online has been disgraceful. It doesn't mean what they did was right but after a pretty intensive and life impacting 8 weeks they are bound to be tired and emotional and I know I would not like my integrity being questioned by faceless morons online.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 10:11:09 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 30, 2018, 10:02:53 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:53:05 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 30, 2018, 09:49:29 AM
Probably an All Ireland issue.

https://theulsterfry.com/featured/ni-unemployment-solved-as-everyone-now-qualified-barrister/ (https://theulsterfry.com/featured/ni-unemployment-solved-as-everyone-now-qualified-barrister/)

Can you explain what you mean by this? Is it in some way directed at me?

Touchy or what?

Don't flatter yourself that it was aimed at you.

Given how so many on this Board with two notable exceptions have become legal experts over the last two months, the article is fairly apt here as for all those keyboard warriors on social media.

Just a coincidence so? I'll take your word for it.

As for the flippant nonsense of the article you linked and the oft repeated "fireside lawyers" phrase - quite the contrary in fact. Most people accept and admit they have no legal training and are not experts. However, I'm also not an expert on birds or wildlife but if something walks likes a duck and quacks like a duck I'll often give my opinion that I'm strongly of the view that it's a duck.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 10:12:35 AM
MS I'm not suggesting you are wrong but I saw the 7.5% claim in a recent article, I also saw a figure of 6% and 60% in other articles. Does anyone actually know what the correct statistic is and how it compares to other types of criminal complaint?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Applesisapples on March 30, 2018, 10:32:32 AM
I have to say I am still conflicted by both sides of this episode. That said proving something beyond all reasonable doubt is difficult. You can not find someone guilty on a balance of probabilities. In terms of behaviour I am appalled at they way these guys got on, but they weren't on trial for appalling behaviour, they were on trial for rape and sexual assault. If the jury did not accept that this girl had with held contempt, 3 1/2 hours is plenty of time to reach a conclusion. It has been said already that there are no winners here. The rallies may be well meaning but they are unfair and in my opinion do a disservice to those contemplating reporting a rape.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 10:41:18 AM
I don't but it seems quite low. I think most reasonable people accept there's an underreporting of sexual crimes and the last 10 weeks will certainly not assist with that......including the reactions of those who wanted the girl named and shamed or charged.

I also cannot get away from the thought in my head that this should this girl be 100% telling the truth, effectively she couldn't reasonably have done any more to get a conviction. It really bothers me to be honest. I've many other thoughts on this case and the wider issues it highlights which I'll not share here because they're only my opinions and I'd be here until Christmas defending them as there's a level of my personal judgement based on what I've heard, seen and experienced.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 10:42:24 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 10:12:35 AM
MS I'm not suggesting you are wrong but I saw the 7.5% claim in a recent article, I also saw a figure of 6% and 60% in other articles. Does anyone actually know what the correct statistic is and how it compares to other types of criminal complaint?

I thought the 60% was of cases brought to trial?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: passedit on March 30, 2018, 10:54:14 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 10:12:35 AM
MS I'm not suggesting you are wrong but I saw the 7.5% claim in a recent article, I also saw a figure of 6% and 60% in other articles. Does anyone actually know what the correct statistic is and how it compares to other types of criminal complaint?

I posted the article with the 7.5% claim and was surprised it was that high tbh, then I reread it and saw it referred to reported rapes.Stats prove anything and It's logical that cases that actually make to court will have a much higher conviction rate as the 'weeding out' process is fairly savage*. When you add the number of women who either blame themselves or realise there is no prospect of a conviction then it's easy to get to the figure I had in my head (half remembered articles over many years) of around 2%. 

*  Not being in the criminal justice system my personal knowledge of this relates to one case where a 16 year old girl i knew (Childminders daughter) was raped by the security guard as she got changed after a shift at a local supermarket. There was a violent struggle in which she suffered hospitalising injuries and took quite a bit of his flesh with her fingernails. The cubicle door where he raoed her was torn off as well. The man was arrested and sacked but the CPS decided not to prosecute because she was active sexually. He got his job back and she had to leave. But sure she was probably asking for it putting it about and all.

With this particular case what I can't get my head around is that the jury believe that this girl serviced three men and none of them penetrated her with his penis? Really?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 10:56:49 AM
Quote from: passedit on March 30, 2018, 10:54:14 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 10:12:35 AM
MS I'm not suggesting you are wrong but I saw the 7.5% claim in a recent article, I also saw a figure of 6% and 60% in other articles. Does anyone actually know what the correct statistic is and how it compares to other types of criminal complaint?

I posted the article with the 7.5% claim and was surprised it was that high tbh, then I reread it and saw it referred to reported rapes.Stats prove anything and It's logical that cases that actually make to court will have a much higher conviction rate as the 'weeding out' process is fairly savage*. When you add the number of women who either blame themselves or realise there is no prospect of a conviction then it's easy to get to the figure I had in my head (half remembered articles over many years) of around 2%. 

*  Not being in the criminal justice system my personal knowledge of this relates to one case where a 16 year old girl i knew (Childminders daughter) was raped by the security guard as she got changed after a shift at a local supermarket. There was a violent struggle in which she suffered hospitalising injuries and took quite a bit of his flesh with her fingernails. The cubicle door where he raoed her was torn off as well. The man was arrested and sacked but the CPS decided not to prosecute because she was active sexually. He got his job back and she had to leave. But sure she was probably asking for it putting it about and all.

With this particular case what I can't get my head around is that the jury believe that this girl serviced three men and none of them penetrated her with his penis? Really?

Why do you say that? All the jury said was not guilty on the charges. They might well think Paddy Jackson is lying, but that the girl consented.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 11:00:39 AM
It's not possible to second guess what the jury thought because you've to make too many assumptions. I say this with the greatest respect to even our legally qualified folks.

The 4 defence teams did their job which by any measure was easier that the prosecutions. I think the decision comes down to that mainly.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: passedit on March 30, 2018, 11:04:36 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 10:56:49 AM
Quote from: passedit on March 30, 2018, 10:54:14 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 10:12:35 AM
MS I'm not suggesting you are wrong but I saw the 7.5% claim in a recent article, I also saw a figure of 6% and 60% in other articles. Does anyone actually know what the correct statistic is and how it compares to other types of criminal complaint?

I posted the article with the 7.5% claim and was surprised it was that high tbh, then I reread it and saw it referred to reported rapes.Stats prove anything and It's logical that cases that actually make to court will have a much higher conviction rate as the 'weeding out' process is fairly savage*. When you add the number of women who either blame themselves or realise there is no prospect of a conviction then it's easy to get to the figure I had in my head (half remembered articles over many years) of around 2%. 

*  Not being in the criminal justice system my personal knowledge of this relates to one case where a 16 year old girl i knew (Childminders daughter) was raped by the security guard as she got changed after a shift at a local supermarket. There was a violent struggle in which she suffered hospitalising injuries and took quite a bit of his flesh with her fingernails. The cubicle door where he raoed her was torn off as well. The man was arrested and sacked but the CPS decided not to prosecute because she was active sexually. He got his job back and she had to leave. But sure she was probably asking for it putting it about and all.

With this particular case what I can't get my head around is that the jury believe that this girl serviced three men and none of them penetrated her with his penis? Really?

Why do you say that? All the jury said was not guilty on the charges. They might well think Paddy Jackson is lying, but that the girl consented.

Then why lie about it? Why not just say that she consented? He lied about the crucial part of his defence and he still gets off with hardly a discussion? 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 11:07:44 AM
Quote from: passedit on March 30, 2018, 11:04:36 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 10:56:49 AM
Quote from: passedit on March 30, 2018, 10:54:14 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 10:12:35 AM
MS I'm not suggesting you are wrong but I saw the 7.5% claim in a recent article, I also saw a figure of 6% and 60% in other articles. Does anyone actually know what the correct statistic is and how it compares to other types of criminal complaint?

I posted the article with the 7.5% claim and was surprised it was that high tbh, then I reread it and saw it referred to reported rapes.Stats prove anything and It's logical that cases that actually make to court will have a much higher conviction rate as the 'weeding out' process is fairly savage*. When you add the number of women who either blame themselves or realise there is no prospect of a conviction then it's easy to get to the figure I had in my head (half remembered articles over many years) of around 2%. 

*  Not being in the criminal justice system my personal knowledge of this relates to one case where a 16 year old girl i knew (Childminders daughter) was raped by the security guard as she got changed after a shift at a local supermarket. There was a violent struggle in which she suffered hospitalising injuries and took quite a bit of his flesh with her fingernails. The cubicle door where he raoed her was torn off as well. The man was arrested and sacked but the CPS decided not to prosecute because she was active sexually. He got his job back and she had to leave. But sure she was probably asking for it putting it about and all.

With this particular case what I can't get my head around is that the jury believe that this girl serviced three men and none of them penetrated her with his penis? Really?

Why do you say that? All the jury said was not guilty on the charges. They might well think Paddy Jackson is lying, but that the girl consented.

Then why lie about it? Why not just say that she consented? He lied about the crucial part of his defence and he still gets off with hardly a discussion?

Hardly a discussion? Jaysus where have you been. There's 200 pages here, and a lot of it refers to inconsistencies in what the defence said. It's entirely possible that she consented, he lied about just using his fingers, and the charges would still be not guilty, because if there's consent then there's no rape or sexual assault.

I just think you are assuming too much, as Seanie said.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on March 30, 2018, 11:08:46 AM
Quote from: passedit on March 30, 2018, 11:04:36 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 10:56:49 AM
Quote from: passedit on March 30, 2018, 10:54:14 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 10:12:35 AM
MS I'm not suggesting you are wrong but I saw the 7.5% claim in a recent article, I also saw a figure of 6% and 60% in other articles. Does anyone actually know what the correct statistic is and how it compares to other types of criminal complaint?

I posted the article with the 7.5% claim and was surprised it was that high tbh, then I reread it and saw it referred to reported rapes.Stats prove anything and It's logical that cases that actually make to court will have a much higher conviction rate as the 'weeding out' process is fairly savage*. When you add the number of women who either blame themselves or realise there is no prospect of a conviction then it's easy to get to the figure I had in my head (half remembered articles over many years) of around 2%. 

*  Not being in the criminal justice system my personal knowledge of this relates to one case where a 16 year old girl i knew (Childminders daughter) was raped by the security guard as she got changed after a shift at a local supermarket. There was a violent struggle in which she suffered hospitalising injuries and took quite a bit of his flesh with her fingernails. The cubicle door where he raoed her was torn off as well. The man was arrested and sacked but the CPS decided not to prosecute because she was active sexually. He got his job back and she had to leave. But sure she was probably asking for it putting it about and all.

With this particular case what I can't get my head around is that the jury believe that this girl serviced three men and none of them penetrated her with his penis? Really?

Why do you say that? All the jury said was not guilty on the charges. They might well think Paddy Jackson is lying, but that the girl consented.

Then why lie about it? Why not just say that she consented? He lied about the crucial part of his defence and he still gets off with hardly a discussion?

I have to admit this comment made my spit my tea out!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on March 30, 2018, 11:10:56 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 10:41:18 AM
I don't but it seems quite low. I think most reasonable people accept there's an underreporting of sexual crimes and the last 10 weeks will certainly not assist with that......including the reactions of those who wanted the girl named and shamed or charged.

I also cannot get away from the thought in my head that this should this girl be 100% telling the truth, effectively she couldn't reasonably have done any more to get a conviction. It really bothers me to be honest. I've many other thoughts on this case and the wider issues it highlights which I'll not share here because they're only my opinions and I'd be here until Christmas defending them as there's a level of my personal judgement based on what I've heard, seen and experienced.

Thats the crux of the issue. The nature of rape cases where the victim knows/has engaged with the attacker, say met in a club and went back to a house (as distinct from the unknown attacker in a dark alley scenario that is more black and white) is that it will more often than not boil down to a he said/she said scenario in a private place with no witnesses.  If there are no physical injuries it is practically impossible to secure a conviction with the reasonable doubt bar. The point that was raised in this trial about rape victims not necessarily struggling out of fear of further violence was something I did not appreciate and is quite frightening to be honest.  This further reduces the chance of physical evidence helping to secure a conviction.

This puts the police and victim in an impossible situation. A question for BCB or David. This might be an unfair question but  lets say a girl meets a guy in a bar and they get on well, all over each other in club on CCtV and go back to her house where they end up in bed together. She says no sex but he rapes her. She reports this to the police immediately but on examination has no physical signs of force. Police arrest the rapist and he says no, she absolutely consented but she got mad when i told her i didnt want to see her again and as far as I was concerned it was a one night stand.

In this scenario would the PPS be likely to take this to court? Without any legal expertise I would be inclined to say that I cant see how that case would get a conviction despite a crime being committed which is a tough concept to accept.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 11:25:55 AM
Again I've seen figures bandied about left right and centre. Certainly crime is underreported in this jurisdiction generally and specifically sexual crime. I don't think the coverage of this case is going to help in this regard. This leads me on to my issues with this #ibelieveher movement.

Right I have the following issues with the #ibelieveher movement and today's protest for the following reasons.

A doubt many in the movement heard all the evidence in the case. The general public certainly didn't. Without hearing all the evidence it's impossible to have formed any sort of view of this women's credibility. The jury heard all the evidence and in very short order acquitted all 4 defendants. Significantly they acquitted McIlroy too who unlike Jackson and Olding did not have the defence of reasonable belief in consent. The jury could only have done that if they didn't believe the girl. Whilst I acknowledge that jurors can and do make mistakes. Both of those things are significant for me. If they didn't believe her then I think people have every right not to believe her. People shouldn't be castigated or abused for this.

2. The movement is doing more harm than good by spreading misinformation about the criminal justice system. The fact is rape trials are treated differently to any other type of trials. Rape victims are automatically eligible for special measures. Rules about admission of hearsay are less strict and non defendant bad character more strict etc. The criminal justice system does plenty to assist rape victims but this movement is portraying that it doesn't. That will put victims off coming forward.

3. There's a lot of background info that wasn't shared about the girl and for good reason.

4. Any attempt to explain this or reason with the movement has been labelled rape apologists or rapists. That doesn't help anyone

5. They've intensified the scrutiny on an alleged rape victim either deliberately or accidentally. That's counter productive in the extreme and again is likely to discourage rape victims from coming forward.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 11:37:33 AM
In response to the type of case that's he said she said. They can be brought to court and they can result in convictions. Hundreds of charges a year are on the basis of he said she said. If anything rules about evidence regarding first complaint evidence actually make it easier in rape trials than other types of trials. There is a growing perception that it's impossible to secure a conviction in the circumstances. It's not. Often it will come down to the believability of the witnesses when considered against the other evidence in the case.

Before any charges are settled the PPS will consider all the evidence and perform a two stage test. Firstly is there sufficient evidence to believe there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. Not a high likelihood of conviction or a certainty of conviction just a reasonable prospect of conviction. Then the second step is it in the public interest.

I can appreciate that the criminal justice process can be difficult for victims but that has to be balanced against the rights of the accused to a fair hearing.

I have yet to hear any real alternatives from those who bemoan the current system.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 11:42:11 AM
I think point 3 is going to get out eventually. That girl regrettably is going to be fed to the lions on social media and indeed MSM. The #ibelieveher movement is making a lot of people angry and I can't see a happy ending. They will soon move on to #repealthe8th as their next crusade.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 11:50:18 AM
QuoteRape is not a well reported crime. In the Rape Crisis Network National Statistics 2015, fewer than 32% of survivors reported the sexual violence to the Gardaí. Fear of not being believed, of hurting loved ones (for example, if the rapist is a family member), or fear of the attacker can cause a survivor not to report. Also, many survivors simply try to forget that it ever happened.

https://www.rapecrisis.ie/statistics.html (https://www.rapecrisis.ie/statistics.html)

QuoteFigures issued by the DPP show that sexual offences had the lowest conviction rate with 89% of such cases coming before the country's Circuit Criminal Courts in 2014 resulting in a conviction.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sexual-offences-have-lowest-conviction-rates-in-countrys-circuit-courts-414817.html (https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sexual-offences-have-lowest-conviction-rates-in-countrys-circuit-courts-414817.html)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: passedit on March 30, 2018, 12:00:00 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 30, 2018, 11:08:46 AM
Quote from: passedit on March 30, 2018, 11:04:36 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 10:56:49 AM
Quote from: passedit on March 30, 2018, 10:54:14 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 10:12:35 AM
MS I'm not suggesting you are wrong but I saw the 7.5% claim in a recent article, I also saw a figure of 6% and 60% in other articles. Does anyone actually know what the correct statistic is and how it compares to other types of criminal complaint?

I posted the article with the 7.5% claim and was surprised it was that high tbh, then I reread it and saw it referred to reported rapes.Stats prove anything and It's logical that cases that actually make to court will have a much higher conviction rate as the 'weeding out' process is fairly savage*. When you add the number of women who either blame themselves or realise there is no prospect of a conviction then it's easy to get to the figure I had in my head (half remembered articles over many years) of around 2%. 

*  Not being in the criminal justice system my personal knowledge of this relates to one case where a 16 year old girl i knew (Childminders daughter) was raped by the security guard as she got changed after a shift at a local supermarket. There was a violent struggle in which she suffered hospitalising injuries and took quite a bit of his flesh with her fingernails. The cubicle door where he raoed her was torn off as well. The man was arrested and sacked but the CPS decided not to prosecute because she was active sexually. He got his job back and she had to leave. But sure she was probably asking for it putting it about and all.

With this particular case what I can't get my head around is that the jury believe that this girl serviced three men and none of them penetrated her with his penis? Really?

Why do you say that? All the jury said was not guilty on the charges. They might well think Paddy Jackson is lying, but that the girl consented.

Then why lie about it? Why not just say that she consented? He lied about the crucial part of his defence and he still gets off with hardly a discussion?

I have to admit this comment made my spit my tea out!!
I was referring to the length of time of jury deliberation, which we are being reliably informed means that the jury didn't believe her at all therefore accepted Jackson's defence unreservedly.  I fully understand how the beyond reasonable doubt threshhold may not have been reached.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 12:00:27 PM
Nobody should be castigated or abused for an opinion. Challenged - absolutely but not ridiculed or demeaned. I'm sure there is plenty of over the top stuff going on but just as David outlined above reasons why people may not believe the alleged victim, there are reasons why people do believe her. Those opinions are just as valid.

I'm not sure why these demos have made some people (mostly men) so angry.

As for the point number 3 David mentioned.....I'm sure we all sincerely hope anyone who compromises the alleged victims anonymity is severely dealt with by the law. Any such "background info" is completely irrelevant and it's a no brainer it's excluded.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 12:00:27 PM
Nobody should be castigated or abused for an opinion. Challenged - absolutely but not ridiculed or demeaned. I'm sure there is plenty of over the top stuff going on but just as David outlined above reasons why people may not believe the alleged victim, there are reasons why people do believe her. Those opinions are just as valid.

I'm not sure why these demos have made some people (mostly men) so angry.

As for the point number 3 David mentioned.....I'm sure we all sincerely hope anyone who compromises the alleged victims anonymity is severely dealt with by the law. Any such "background info" is completely irrelevant and it's a no brainer it's excluded.

I'm not 'angry' but I don't like being told that because I let the jury tell me whether the men were guilty or not, I am some sort of monster. It's hysterical bullshit.

If the protests were simply about the way the trial was handled, I'd have no issue really.

But some of these protesters don't seem to understand the ROI has a different system....
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 12:06:53 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 11:50:18 AM
QuoteRape is not a well reported crime. In the Rape Crisis Network National Statistics 2015, fewer than 32% of survivors reported the sexual violence to the Gardaí. Fear of not being believed, of hurting loved ones (for example, if the rapist is a family member), or fear of the attacker can cause a survivor not to report. Also, many survivors simply try to forget that it ever happened.

https://www.rapecrisis.ie/statistics.html (https://www.rapecrisis.ie/statistics.html)

QuoteFigures issued by the DPP show that sexual offences had the lowest conviction rate with 89% of such cases coming before the country's Circuit Criminal Courts in 2014 resulting in a conviction.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sexual-offences-have-lowest-conviction-rates-in-countrys-circuit-courts-414817.html (https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sexual-offences-have-lowest-conviction-rates-in-countrys-circuit-courts-414817.html)

QuoteFACT 6: Rape is not a well reported crime. In the Rape Crisis Network National Statistics 2015, fewer than 32% of survivors reported the sexual violence to the Gardaí. Fear of not being believed, of hurting loved ones (for example, if the rapist is a family member), or fear of the attacker can cause a survivor not to report. Also, many survivors simply try to forget that it ever happened.

IMPACT: Low reporting leads to a denial of the scale of the problem in our society and rapists continue to get away with their crimes in huge numbers

That impact is chilling.

Whatever the figures, I think we can agree rapes are underreported and when they do make it to court they get convictions at a much lower rate than other crimes.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 12:13:48 PM
I should add that if the jury didn't believe the complainant it doesn't follow at all that they believed Jackson at all.

For me the following could have occurred.

Believe complainant 100% and don't believe Jackson et al = conviction for all
Believe complainant 100% but believe Jackson and Olding about their reasonable belief in consent then only McIlroy convicted.
Don't believe complainant sufficiently and don't believe Jackson et al =acquittal
Don't believe complainant sufficiently  and do believe Jackson et al  = acquittal
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 12:16:34 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 12:06:53 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 11:50:18 AM
QuoteRape is not a well reported crime. In the Rape Crisis Network National Statistics 2015, fewer than 32% of survivors reported the sexual violence to the Gardaí. Fear of not being believed, of hurting loved ones (for example, if the rapist is a family member), or fear of the attacker can cause a survivor not to report. Also, many survivors simply try to forget that it ever happened.

https://www.rapecrisis.ie/statistics.html (https://www.rapecrisis.ie/statistics.html)

QuoteFigures issued by the DPP show that sexual offences had the lowest conviction rate with 89% of such cases coming before the country's Circuit Criminal Courts in 2014 resulting in a conviction.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sexual-offences-have-lowest-conviction-rates-in-countrys-circuit-courts-414817.html (https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sexual-offences-have-lowest-conviction-rates-in-countrys-circuit-courts-414817.html)

QuoteFACT 6: Rape is not a well reported crime. In the Rape Crisis Network National Statistics 2015, fewer than 32% of survivors reported the sexual violence to the Gardaí. Fear of not being believed, of hurting loved ones (for example, if the rapist is a family member), or fear of the attacker can cause a survivor not to report. Also, many survivors simply try to forget that it ever happened.

IMPACT: Low reporting leads to a denial of the scale of the problem in our society and rapists continue to get away with their crimes in huge numbers

That impact is chilling.

Whatever the figures, I think we can agree rapes are underreported and when they do make it to court they get convictions at a much lower rate than other crimes.

I can certainly agree with the first part of that. The latter I would like some more research done on in the north. For example I know of at least three other rape trials (2 convictions and an acquittal) that have completed during the currency of this trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 12:23:40 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 12:00:27 PM
Nobody should be castigated or abused for an opinion. Challenged - absolutely but not ridiculed or demeaned. I'm sure there is plenty of over the top stuff going on but just as David outlined above reasons why people may not believe the alleged victim, there are reasons why people do believe her. Those opinions are just as valid.

I'm not sure why these demos have made some people (mostly men) so angry.

As for the point number 3 David mentioned.....I'm sure we all sincerely hope anyone who compromises the alleged victims anonymity is severely dealt with by the law. Any such "background info" is completely irrelevant and it's a no brainer it's excluded.

I'm not 'angry' but I don't like being told that because I let the jury tell me whether the men were guilty or not, I am some sort of monster. It's hysterical bullshit.

If the protests were simply about the way the trial was handled, I'd have no issue really.

But some of these protesters don't seem to understand the ROI has a different system....

Others above had spoken of "anger". I would say they're correct judging by some social media reaction I've seen and a conversation I overheard in my local pub last evening involving all the (7/8) men around the bar.

If you're being told you're a monster as you describe then that's clearly wrong. It's a reasonable position even if I don't totally agree with it. 

I think the underlying issue of sexual crimes and violence against women are the main reasons for the numbers turning out. The most vocal ones in a situation can often be the most extreme ones. They're unlikely to speak for the general feeling of the crowd. I think it's unwise to categorise the entire group in that way.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 30, 2018, 12:25:11 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 07:56:31 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 29, 2018, 11:04:37 PM
I'm sorry if you disagree with the result but I don't understand how anyone can advocate a system where the IP version of events are not challenged in a court of law. There's a lot of shite that she shouldn't be questioned for so long. Not 3 weeks ago everyone of this guardian reading crowd were celebrating how well she acquitted herself in the witness box. The IP version of events must be scrutinised as closely as the defendants if their is to be any sense of fairness or equality within the law.

There's this bizarre argument out there that seems to suggest that in cases of rape the IP's testimony should be above reproach.
Excellent post trileacman. They are angry that the girl was treated very badly and there's no doubt she was but what specific changes would they like to see to the system? It's terrible that in an accusation of gang rape the accuser gets questioned by several barristers but difficult to see a way round it. Anonymity until the verdict would be a good change but I don't think the protesters would want anything that would make life easier for the accused.

Personally I think any protests should be aimed at the police who were no doubt influenced by the prevailing culture in not questioning the accuser during her police interview. If they had, depending on the answers the girl had given, they could have either dropped the case or proceeded with a genuine case of conviction.

Very few  of these people who are so angry about the case seem to accept that the 100% correct verdict was reached by the jury given the evidence. That's not to say with 100% certainty that the girl wasn't raped.

If these protesters want the law changed so that a man has to be able to prove consent (maybe technology could play a role here- some kind of consent app?)beyond a reasonable doubt, that would be a worthwhile debate and if things did go that way at least it would be clear.

The problem with the protests is that they just seem angry and vindictive and will end up being about ruining the next few years of the accused men's lives.

We haven't always seen eye to eye over this case AM, but that's a good, clear logical posts around some of the issues and I'd concur with all of it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 12:26:06 PM
Why have the #ibelieveher crowd not been at those other trials? Not high profile enough
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 30, 2018, 12:27:33 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 09:48:43 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:46:13 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 09:34:17 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

With all respect Seanie these people have had the last 8-9 weeks of their lives consumed by this trial. They have had to listen to all the evidence and make a huge decision on the most high profile trial there has been for years. Now they have this decision being questioned significantly and people organising mass rallies....I can see how they might crack. It doesn't mean that the person should have responded but I can understand why they felt the necessity

I think your sympathy is misplaced. They were clearly directed by the judge on this when discharged. Couldn't have been clearer. To go out 7 hours later and engage online with people shows the most amazing lack of judgement I think it's legitimate to question what else this person heard and ignored.

I haven't read the comments as they've been removed. Have you?  It was foolhardy, for all we know the person had a few drinks in them and was pissed off at the way their opinion was being undermined. That doesn't in any way undermine the decision. Don't be grasping for something that isn't there.

Three double vodkas or an Oldingsworth?? ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 30, 2018, 12:43:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 12:13:48 PM
I should add that if the jury didn't believe the complainant it doesn't follow at all that they believed Jackson at all.

For me the following could have occurred.

Believe complainant 100% and don't believe Jackson et al = conviction for all
Believe complainant 100% but believe Jackson and Olding about their reasonable belief in consent then only McIlroy convicted.
Don't believe complainant sufficiently and don't believe Jackson et al =acquittal
Don't believe complainant sufficiently  and do believe Jackson et al  = acquittal

Don't believe complainant sufficiently and don't believe Jackson et al =acquittal

Just my opinion, but I think this is the territory we're in.  If you don't believe the accuser's version of events then it doesn't really matter what the defendant says (bar a confession) you can't convict.

I thought (wrongly) that the complainant had been more credible and in that circumstance Jackson et al's evidence would have been key and might have left them on thin ice.  As I said earlier, my gut tells me with hindsight, had the defendants not given evidence they still would have been acquitted.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 01:05:25 PM
https://twitter.com/KevDoyle_Indo/status/979688678032314368 (https://twitter.com/KevDoyle_Indo/status/979688678032314368)

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 30, 2018, 01:15:44 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 01:05:25 PM
https://twitter.com/KevDoyle_Indo/status/979688678032314368 (https://twitter.com/KevDoyle_Indo/status/979688678032314368)

The old "they only got off because they are middle class" excuse...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 01:17:57 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 01:05:25 PM
https://twitter.com/KevDoyle_Indo/status/979688678032314368 (https://twitter.com/KevDoyle_Indo/status/979688678032314368)

The irony of this is that she is probably 'more' upper middle class then all of them with far more 'connections '. This class thing is such a pile of crap!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Christmas Lights on March 30, 2018, 01:56:26 PM
Quote from: whitey on March 29, 2018, 08:14:28 PM
So after 200 odd pages what are the lessons to be learned from this sorry episode?

(https://frinkiac.com/meme/S06E09/783899.jpg?b64lines=IEkgZG9uJ3Qga25vdyBQYWRkeSAKIEphY2tzb24uIEkgbmV2ZXIgbWV0CiBQYWRkeSBKYWNrc29uIG9yIGhhZCBhbnkKIGNvbnRhY3Qgd2l0aCBoaW0sIGJ1dC4uLg==)

(https://frinkiac.com/meme/S06E09/791573.jpg?b64lines=SSdtIHNvcnJ5LgogSS1JIGNhbid0IGdvIG9uLiA=)

(https://frinkiac.com/meme/S06E09/792574.jpg?b64lines=VGhhdCdzIG9rYXkuIFlvdXIKIHRlYXJzIHNheSBtb3JlIHRoYW4gcmVhbAogZXZpZGVuY2UgZXZlciBjb3VsZC4=)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 02:07:12 PM
How many people are innocent that go to court? At this rate there will be protests at every court!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 30, 2018, 02:11:05 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 12:13:48 PM
I should add that if the jury didn't believe the complainant it doesn't follow at all that they believed Jackson at all.

For me the following could have occurred.

Believe complainant 100% and don't believe Jackson et al = conviction for all
Believe complainant 100% but believe Jackson and Olding about their reasonable belief in consent then only McIlroy convicted.
Don't believe complainant sufficiently and don't believe Jackson et al =acquittal
Don't believe complainant sufficiently  and do believe Jackson et al  = acquittal
If she didn't expressly not give consent then is it not possible that you can believe both her and Jackson. She froze as said nothing as she believed she was under duress whereas he took the lack of dissent as consent.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 30, 2018, 02:12:25 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 01:17:57 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 01:05:25 PM
https://twitter.com/KevDoyle_Indo/status/979688678032314368 (https://twitter.com/KevDoyle_Indo/status/979688678032314368)

The irony of this is that she is probably 'more' upper middle class then all of them with far more 'connections '. This class thing is such a pile of crap!!!
No word of the class breakdown of the jurors either. They'll be next for a witch hunt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 02:19:39 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 30, 2018, 02:11:05 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 12:13:48 PM
I should add that if the jury didn't believe the complainant it doesn't follow at all that they believed Jackson at all.

For me the following could have occurred.

Believe complainant 100% and don't believe Jackson et al = conviction for all
Believe complainant 100% but believe Jackson and Olding about their reasonable belief in consent then only McIlroy convicted.
Don't believe complainant sufficiently and don't believe Jackson et al =acquittal
Don't believe complainant sufficiently  and do believe Jackson et al  = acquittal
If she didn't expressly not give consent then is it not possible that you can believe both her and Jackson. She froze as said nothing as she believed she was under duress whereas he took the lack of dissent as consent.

The fact that the jury found Jackson NG of sexual assault and McIlroy NG of exposure would strongly suggest that ther was a strong belief that she consented. The McIlroy charge does not need consent and the physical act of the sexual assault was admitted. If there was no consent then they had to find PJ guilty of sexual assault, simple as that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 02:30:06 PM
Unless of course they felt he had a reasonable belief in consent
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 02:30:06 PM
Unless of course they felt he had a reasonable belief in consent

True
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 03:00:29 PM
Lads take a break! You two haven't been paid a dime for all this! And you've been trying to defend your practice and continually being questioned!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 03:10:23 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 03:00:29 PM
Lads take a break! You two haven't been paid a dime for all this! And you've been trying to defend your practice and continually being questioned!

True but I've been off sick or injured for a while so I'm stuck in bed with little better to do
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Jim Bob on March 30, 2018, 03:19:34 PM
Got fed up with this trial about a week ago. Switched over whenever it came on news. Heard the verdict and that's about all I wanted to hear of it. Appears to be still dominating the new though
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 30, 2018, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 03:00:29 PM
Lads take a break! You two haven't been paid a dime for all this! And you've been trying to defend your practice and continually being questioned!


And I'm just an argumentative cvunt!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 03:29:51 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

Seanie, don't be like Syf. But that's not what I meant anyway. I meant they'll be getting offers of money etc. to go off the record.

Do t be like me? What the fück?

AZ, you were the one who came into this thread thinking if it was rape the woman would be shouting and screaming and acting like an MMA fighter, it's more than a bit rich that you'd try to tee off on me.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hardy on March 30, 2018, 03:36:03 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 10:06:16 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on March 30, 2018, 09:56:43 AM
It is poor judgement, but again I ask, who exactly were those rallies aiming their anger at? None of them heard all the evidence. The jury did, their decision must be respected.

Not having been at any or indeed seen much coverage of them I can't say for certain but I think anyone with any level of cop on can see that for the vast majority it's at the legal system and the way these types of trials are conducted. Others are just angry and need to vent or lash out. Lots of women may have been through something similar or know someone who went though something similar. Only 7.5% of reported cases result in convictions......either we've a massive number of liars out there or the system is grossly unfit for purpose.

I can see how the anger is legitimate and this high profile case has proved to be a lightening rod for an underlying issue that's there a long time.

Quote from: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 10:12:35 AM
MS I'm not suggesting you are wrong but I saw the 7.5% claim in a recent article, I also saw a figure of 6% and 60% in other articles. Does anyone actually know what the correct statistic is and how it compares to other types of criminal complaint?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/ourview/rape-conviction-rate-offers-no-protection-276761.html (https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/ourview/rape-conviction-rate-offers-no-protection-276761.html)

"During 2013, the Central Criminal Court dealt with a total of 567 rape cases.

Seventy-three of the accused pleaded guilty, thereby saving the court valuable time, for which they would have received reduced sentences. Of the others charged before the court, 205 defendants were sent to trial. Those trials ended with 35 convictions, and 155 acquittals. In 15 instances, the jury was unable to agree on a verdict.

One way of interpreting those figures would be that the jury convicted fractionally over 17% of those tried for rape and acquitted 76.6%."


A surprising statistic to me is that 26% of those accused of rape pleaded guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 03:36:54 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2018, 10:32:32 AM
I have to say I am still conflicted by both sides of this episode. That said proving something beyond all reasonable doubt is difficult. You can not find someone guilty on a balance of probabilities. In terms of behaviour I am appalled at they way these guys got on, but they weren't on trial for appalling behaviour, they were on trial for rape and sexual assault. If the jury did not accept that this girl had with held contempt, 3 1/2 hours is plenty of time to reach a conclusion. It has been said already that there are no winners here. The rallies may be well meaning but they are unfair and in my opinion do a disservice to those contemplating reporting a rape.

I really cannot fathom how the protests do a disservice to the people reporting a rape. That is an incredible stance to take.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 03:40:21 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 03:29:51 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
God love the poor craythurs.

Seanie, don't be like Syf. But that's not what I meant anyway. I meant they'll be getting offers of money etc. to go off the record.

Do t be like me? What the fück?

AZ, you were the one who came into this thread thinking if it was rape the woman would be shouting and screaming and acting like an MMA fighter, it's more than a bit rich that you'd try to tee off on me.

I'm slagging. Relax. You're a narky fecker.

'Tee off on me' :)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on March 30, 2018, 03:46:25 PM
Quote from: square_ball on March 30, 2018, 07:43:22 AM
Quote from: Main Street on March 30, 2018, 01:03:38 AM
Quote from: square_ball on March 29, 2018, 10:32:17 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 29, 2018, 10:29:04 PM
Quote from: fearbrags on March 29, 2018, 09:58:36 PM
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/martina-devlin-twotier-morality-means-girls-face-an-impossible-list-of-dos-and-donts-36757069.html

Dear lord!!!

How does that nonsense get published??
Are you completely at a loss for common sense  to take on board some of the points made in that article?
Do you think there is no merit for such a rape case to be held in camera, for the complainant  or the accused who were deemed not guilty? That even in a trial where the prosecution case had much more substance, that such an experience for the complainant would be any easier? That such a court experience could be perceived as an off putting ordeal for a complainant?
You don't think people are entitled to have an opinion on the the loutish carry on of the accused?

I was talking about the whole 'Do and Don't' list crap she spouts.

She makes a few valid points towards the end but in the main it's nonsense and simply fuelling the ongoing trial by social media.
Only  few valid points at the end??
I was surprised that it's regarded as proper procedure for a lawyer to find a petty context so he can have the complainant's purple lacy underwear paraded about court, first to the judge then to be passed around to every one in the jury.

Let's have a look at some of the perceived do and donts which arose out of this trial and is not about "believe her"
Which ones of these are nonsense to a woman who has been raped and is considering making a complaint?
"Do expect to have your purple lacy underwear paraded about court."
"Don't expect the judicial system to support you – chances are you'll feel let down by its workings"
"Don't expect other women to follow your example and make complaints if they believe themselves to be the victims of sex crime cases. They won't"
"Do expect to feel like the person on trial rather than the complainant."


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 30, 2018, 03:58:07 PM
What have we learned over the 200+ pages of this thread?

We have learned a lot about the significant number of posters on this Board who have contributed one or more posts to it. Some of it good, some we already suspected about each other and some that has been eye opening.

Tony Fearon will never be gone in spirit while we still have some of those who have posted on this thread.

Oh, and it is very difficult to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt especially in the absence of good forensic evidence. How many would have thought that the legal definition of rape was so complex?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 04:00:37 PM
The one thing that I learned was the physical response to rape. I would have assumed that a girl, in a house full of other people, would scream at least if she was being raped. I am genuinely gobsmacked that this is not the case, and I hold up my hands that I was completely ill informed about that. I thought the fight or flight reflex would kick in.

I could see it in a dark alley type scenario with no one around, but in a busy house? I was very surprised and had my eyes opened on that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 04:00:37 PM
The one thing that I learned was the physical response to rape. I would have assumed that a girl, in a house full of other people, would scream at least if she was being raped. I am genuinely gobsmacked that this is not the case, and I hold up my hands that I was completely ill informed about that. I thought the fight or flight reflex would kick in.

I could see it in a dark alley type scenario with no one around, but in a busy house? I was very surprised and had my eyes opened on that.

Are you saying she was raped then? Or are you using a different scenario ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 30, 2018, 04:43:10 PM
The evidence wasnt there to satisfy the jury. Changing the rules to make convictions easier to get would be wrong and an affront to fair procedures.
Flutes like the Dublin Senator that the electorate rejected in the General Election should know better and I hope Jackson takes him for a good few thousand
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 04:43:48 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 04:00:37 PM
The one thing that I learned was the physical response to rape. I would have assumed that a girl, in a house full of other people, would scream at least if she was being raped. I am genuinely gobsmacked that this is not the case, and I hold up my hands that I was completely ill informed about that. I thought the fight or flight reflex would kick in.

I could see it in a dark alley type scenario with no one around, but in a busy house? I was very surprised and had my eyes opened on that.

Are you saying she was raped then? Or are you using a different scenario ?

No, I'm saying I was educated in this thread by people who quoted research and scientific findings.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 30, 2018, 04:52:12 PM
I'm very surprised Jackson has chosen to sue, he really isn't doing himself any favours as it is only going to prolong the sage for him. It's probably his way of trying to shut down any negative public commentary on him and by choosing a senator out of the hundreds of negative online comments, he is trying to send out a message to silence the critics.

He has a big job on his hand to try and salvage his career and I don't think that is the way to go about it. I hope that they can be allowed to get on with their lives, they have been found not guilty of a crime and their reaction to it will decide how willing people will be to forgive their actions. For me, they deserve another chance to resurrect their careers but for some people they will always be tarnished. Olding's reaction after the trial at least had a bit of dignity.   
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Sweeper 123 on March 30, 2018, 04:59:54 PM
One thing i have noted is that in the ROI we are hearing alot about consent and the need for this to be covered with school kids as part of their education especially by the Politicians;

Nothing really, that i am aware of, by NI politicians;

\
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 05:05:34 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 03:36:54 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 30, 2018, 10:32:32 AM
I have to say I am still conflicted by both sides of this episode. That said proving something beyond all reasonable doubt is difficult. You can not find someone guilty on a balance of probabilities. In terms of behaviour I am appalled at they way these guys got on, but they weren't on trial for appalling behaviour, they were on trial for rape and sexual assault. If the jury did not accept that this girl had with held contempt, 3 1/2 hours is plenty of time to reach a conclusion. It has been said already that there are no winners here. The rallies may be well meaning but they are unfair and in my opinion do a disservice to those contemplating reporting a rape.

I really cannot fathom how the protests do a disservice to the people reporting a rape. That is an incredible stance to take.

There has been significant sentiment from women online and apparently at the protests too that they would not now report a rape were it to happen to them.

While I understand why such sentiment has been expressed given the ordeal the complainant had to go through at the trial, it is disheartening to hear it, and the sentiments themselves are both wrong and dangerous in my view.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 05:10:11 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 30, 2018, 04:52:12 PM
I'm very surprised Jackson has chosen to sue, he really isn't doing himself any favours as it is only going to prolong the sage for him. It's probably his way of trying to shut down any negative public commentary on him and by choosing a senator out of the hundreds of negative online comments, he is trying to send out a message to silence the critics.

He has a big job on his hand to try and salvage his career and I don't think that is the way to go about it. I hope that they can be allowed to get on with their lives, they have been found not guilty of a crime and their reaction to it will decide how willing people will be to forgive their actions. For me, they deserve another chance to resurrect their careers but for some people they will always be tarnished. Olding's reaction after the trial at least had a bit of dignity.   

Are you for real? If your name was dragged through the mud and this continuous #ibelieveher crowd was berating you, you'd be happy to say nowt and move on with the shit fest that's become of it?

When you are in his shoes you can make that choice, until then he's well within his rights to pick who he wants to sue. They have been waiting on this for two years, not 9 weeks. The BBC leaked who it was even before charges were brought, they are in trouble too
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 05:12:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 05:10:11 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 30, 2018, 04:52:12 PM
I'm very surprised Jackson has chosen to sue, he really isn't doing himself any favours as it is only going to prolong the sage for him. It's probably his way of trying to shut down any negative public commentary on him and by choosing a senator out of the hundreds of negative online comments, he is trying to send out a message to silence the critics.

He has a big job on his hand to try and salvage his career and I don't think that is the way to go about it. I hope that they can be allowed to get on with their lives, they have been found not guilty of a crime and their reaction to it will decide how willing people will be to forgive their actions. For me, they deserve another chance to resurrect their careers but for some people they will always be tarnished. Olding's reaction after the trial at least had a bit of dignity.   

Are you for real? If your name was dragged through the mud and this continuous #ibelieveher crowd was berating you, you'd be happy to say nowt and move on with the shit fest that's become of it?

When you are in his shoes you can make that choice, until then he's well within his rights to pick who he wants to sue. They have been waiting on this for two years, not 9 weeks. The BBC leaked who it was even before charges were brought, they are in trouble too

He drug his own name through the mud with his actions.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 05:14:42 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 05:12:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 05:10:11 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 30, 2018, 04:52:12 PM
I'm very surprised Jackson has chosen to sue, he really isn't doing himself any favours as it is only going to prolong the sage for him. It's probably his way of trying to shut down any negative public commentary on him and by choosing a senator out of the hundreds of negative online comments, he is trying to send out a message to silence the critics.

He has a big job on his hand to try and salvage his career and I don't think that is the way to go about it. I hope that they can be allowed to get on with their lives, they have been found not guilty of a crime and their reaction to it will decide how willing people will be to forgive their actions. For me, they deserve another chance to resurrect their careers but for some people they will always be tarnished. Olding's reaction after the trial at least had a bit of dignity.   

Are you for real? If your name was dragged through the mud and this continuous #ibelieveher crowd was berating you, you'd be happy to say nowt and move on with the shit fest that's become of it?

When you are in his shoes you can make that choice, until then he's well within his rights to pick who he wants to sue. They have been waiting on this for two years, not 9 weeks. The BBC leaked who it was even before charges were brought, they are in trouble too

He drug his own name through the mud with his actions.

Having sex with someone? Are you on the wind up?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 30, 2018, 05:21:46 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 05:10:11 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 30, 2018, 04:52:12 PM
I'm very surprised Jackson has chosen to sue, he really isn't doing himself any favours as it is only going to prolong the sage for him. It's probably his way of trying to shut down any negative public commentary on him and by choosing a senator out of the hundreds of negative online comments, he is trying to send out a message to silence the critics.

He has a big job on his hand to try and salvage his career and I don't think that is the way to go about it. I hope that they can be allowed to get on with their lives, they have been found not guilty of a crime and their reaction to it will decide how willing people will be to forgive their actions. For me, they deserve another chance to resurrect their careers but for some people they will always be tarnished. Olding's reaction after the trial at least had a bit of dignity.   

Are you for real? If your name was dragged through the mud and this continuous #ibelieveher crowd was berating you, you'd be happy to say nowt and move on with the shit fest that's become of it?

When you are in his shoes you can make that choice, until then he's well within his rights to pick who he wants to sue. They have been waiting on this for two years, not 9 weeks. The BBC leaked who it was even before charges were brought, they are in trouble too

Take a look...or maybe don't...at #suemepaddy.  I won't copy the tweet from @flyingteacosy as I don't want Kevin Winters on my case but it will give you a flavour :o
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on March 30, 2018, 05:23:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 05:10:11 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 30, 2018, 04:52:12 PM
I'm very surprised Jackson has chosen to sue, he really isn't doing himself any favours as it is only going to prolong the sage for him. It's probably his way of trying to shut down any negative public commentary on him and by choosing a senator out of the hundreds of negative online comments, he is trying to send out a message to silence the critics.

He has a big job on his hand to try and salvage his career and I don't think that is the way to go about it. I hope that they can be allowed to get on with their lives, they have been found not guilty of a crime and their reaction to it will decide how willing people will be to forgive their actions. For me, they deserve another chance to resurrect their careers but for some people they will always be tarnished. Olding's reaction after the trial at least had a bit of dignity.   

Are you for real? If your name was dragged through the mud and this continuous #ibelieveher crowd was berating you, you'd be happy to say nowt and move on with the shit fest that's become of it?

When you are in his shoes you can make that choice, until then he's well within his rights to pick who he wants to sue. They have been waiting on this for two years, not 9 weeks. The BBC leaked who it was even before charges were brought, they are in trouble too

If his name is being dragged through the mud it is not because of a single tweet (mild compared to many) from a senator, even though the tweets implication of them getting off because of being from a middle class background is clearly nonsensical in this case. I just think it is going to allow the whole womens rights movement to mobilise even more. When people feel that they are being threatened to 'zip it' their attitudes simply harden and this is not going to help him to win back any public sympathy. It must be difficult for those men to deal with the backlash and they don't need to be taking advice from a bunch of solicitors to deal with it, but need a proper support network of friends and family around them. Issuing lawsuits and threatening to sue anyone else wouldn't be the approach I would be taking, thats just my opinion. The sooner this story becomes yesterdays news the better.         
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 05:26:43 PM
Don't do twitter! This would be the only social media thingy I'd be on..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 30, 2018, 05:30:55 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 05:26:43 PM
Don't do twitter! This would be the only social media thingy I'd be on..

Some wild stuff!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 30, 2018, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 30, 2018, 04:00:37 PM
The one thing that I learned was the physical response to rape. I would have assumed that a girl, in a house full of other people, would scream at least if she was being raped. I am genuinely gobsmacked that this is not the case, and I hold up my hands that I was completely ill informed about that. I thought the fight or flight reflex would kick in.

I could see it in a dark alley type scenario with no one around, but in a busy house? I was very surprised and had my eyes opened on that.
I don't have the exact words, but the doctor said something along the lines that in "most rapes" the woman doesn't fight, and I can see exactly why, as it could mean an even worse fate than the already horrific rape.

But (to the best of my knowledge based on the twitter summaries I remember) the doctor didn't refer or wasnt asked whether such a reaction would be likely in this case. I would have thought that "most rapes" don't occur in a busy house with other women within shouting distance or with potential rescuers walking in on them in the middle of it.


Anyone remember what the actual reason was for parading the underwear in court? That was hugely distasteful. That happened, as far as I remember in the earlier part of the trial when the prosecution was still presenting its case, although not sure whether it was prosecution or defence that brought it forward (can't see how it helped or hindered either side, so seems wholly unnecessary, but as I said I can't remember the legal reason)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 05:38:33 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 30, 2018, 05:30:55 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 05:26:43 PM
Don't do twitter! This would be the only social media thingy I'd be on..

Some wild stuff!

Are people losing their minds?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 05:39:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 05:38:33 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 30, 2018, 05:30:55 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 05:26:43 PM
Don't do twitter! This would be the only social media thingy I'd be on..

Some wild stuff!

Are people losing their minds?

You seem like you'd know the symptoms intimately anyways.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 30, 2018, 05:44:21 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 10:41:18 AM
I also cannot get away from the thought in my head that this should this girl be 100% telling the truth, effectively she couldn't reasonably have done any more to get a conviction. It really bothers me to be honest. I've many other thoughts on this case and the wider issues it highlights which I'll not share here because they're only my opinions and I'd be here until Christmas defending them as there's a level of my personal judgement based on what I've heard, seen and experienced.

Olding was initially charged with vaginal rape as a result of the initial statements by the complainant. The fact that she changed her story doesn't impact on your opinion about her 100% telling the truth?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 05:50:40 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 30, 2018, 05:44:21 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 10:41:18 AM
I also cannot get away from the thought in my head that this should this girl be 100% telling the truth, effectively she couldn't reasonably have done any more to get a conviction. It really bothers me to be honest. I've many other thoughts on this case and the wider issues it highlights which I'll not share here because they're only my opinions and I'd be here until Christmas defending them as there's a level of my personal judgement based on what I've heard, seen and experienced.

Olding was initially charged with vaginal rape as a result of the initial statements by the complainant. The fact that she changed her story doesn't impact on your opinion about her 100% telling the truth?

Did you actually read what he said before you fell over yourself to defend the top shaggers again?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 30, 2018, 05:52:13 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 30, 2018, 05:44:21 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 10:41:18 AM
I also cannot get away from the thought in my head that this should this girl be 100% telling the truth, effectively she couldn't reasonably have done any more to get a conviction. It really bothers me to be honest. I've many other thoughts on this case and the wider issues it highlights which I'll not share here because they're only my opinions and I'd be here until Christmas defending them as there's a level of my personal judgement based on what I've heard, seen and experienced.

Olding was initially charged with vaginal rape as a result of the initial statements by the complainant. The fact that she changed her story doesn't impact on your opinion about her 100% telling the truth?

seanie can explain better than me but, to be fair to him, that's not the way I take what he posted
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 06:13:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 05:50:40 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 30, 2018, 05:44:21 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 30, 2018, 10:41:18 AM
I also cannot get away from the thought in my head that this should this girl be 100% telling the truth, effectively she couldn't reasonably have done any more to get a conviction. It really bothers me to be honest. I've many other thoughts on this case and the wider issues it highlights which I'll not share here because they're only my opinions and I'd be here until Christmas defending them as there's a level of my personal judgement based on what I've heard, seen and experienced.

Olding was initially charged with vaginal rape as a result of the initial statements by the complainant. The fact that she changed her story doesn't impact on your opinion about her 100% telling the truth?

Did you actually read what he said before you fell over yourself to defend the top shaggers again?

Their only crime! Top shaggers! How's the law course coming along? Judge yet??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 07:51:28 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 30, 2018, 12:25:11 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 07:56:31 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 29, 2018, 11:04:37 PM
I'm sorry if you disagree with the result but I don't understand how anyone can advocate a system where the IP version of events are not challenged in a court of law. There's a lot of shite that she shouldn't be questioned for so long. Not 3 weeks ago everyone of this guardian reading crowd were celebrating how well she acquitted herself in the witness box. The IP version of events must be scrutinised as closely as the defendants if their is to be any sense of fairness or equality within the law.

There's this bizarre argument out there that seems to suggest that in cases of rape the IP's testimony should be above reproach.
Excellent post trileacman. They are angry that the girl was treated very badly and there's no doubt she was but what specific changes would they like to see to the system? It's terrible that in an accusation of gang rape the accuser gets questioned by several barristers but difficult to see a way round it. Anonymity until the verdict would be a good change but I don't think the protesters would want anything that would make life easier for the accused.

Personally I think any protests should be aimed at the police who were no doubt influenced by the prevailing culture in not questioning the accuser during her police interview. If they had, depending on the answers the girl had given, they could have either dropped the case or proceeded with a genuine case of conviction.

Very few  of these people who are so angry about the case seem to accept that the 100% correct verdict was reached by the jury given the evidence. That's not to say with 100% certainty that the girl wasn't raped.

If these protesters want the law changed so that a man has to be able to prove consent (maybe technology could play a role here- some kind of consent app?)beyond a reasonable doubt, that would be a worthwhile debate and if things did go that way at least it would be clear.

The problem with the protests is that they just seem angry and vindictive and will end up being about ruining the next few years of the accused men's lives.

We haven't always seen eye to eye over this case AM, but that's a good, clear logical posts around some of the issues and I'd concur with all of it.
Cheers AQMP,  we haven't but you've always argued the points well and without any of that "victim blaming/misogynist/apologist" shite.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 07:53:05 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 07:51:28 PM
Quote from: AQMP on March 30, 2018, 12:25:11 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 07:56:31 AM
Quote from: trileacman on March 29, 2018, 11:04:37 PM
I'm sorry if you disagree with the result but I don't understand how anyone can advocate a system where the IP version of events are not challenged in a court of law. There's a lot of shite that she shouldn't be questioned for so long. Not 3 weeks ago everyone of this guardian reading crowd were celebrating how well she acquitted herself in the witness box. The IP version of events must be scrutinised as closely as the defendants if their is to be any sense of fairness or equality within the law.

There's this bizarre argument out there that seems to suggest that in cases of rape the IP's testimony should be above reproach.
Excellent post trileacman. They are angry that the girl was treated very badly and there's no doubt she was but what specific changes would they like to see to the system? It's terrible that in an accusation of gang rape the accuser gets questioned by several barristers but difficult to see a way round it. Anonymity until the verdict would be a good change but I don't think the protesters would want anything that would make life easier for the accused.

Personally I think any protests should be aimed at the police who were no doubt influenced by the prevailing culture in not questioning the accuser during her police interview. If they had, depending on the answers the girl had given, they could have either dropped the case or proceeded with a genuine case of conviction.

Very few  of these people who are so angry about the case seem to accept that the 100% correct verdict was reached by the jury given the evidence. That's not to say with 100% certainty that the girl wasn't raped.

If these protesters want the law changed so that a man has to be able to prove consent (maybe technology could play a role here- some kind of consent app?)beyond a reasonable doubt, that would be a worthwhile debate and if things did go that way at least it would be clear.

The problem with the protests is that they just seem angry and vindictive and will end up being about ruining the next few years of the accused men's lives.

We haven't always seen eye to eye over this case AM, but that's a good, clear logical posts around some of the issues and I'd concur with all of it.
Cheers AQMP,  we haven't but you've always argued the points well and without any of that "victim blaming/misogynist/apologist" shite.

The problem is you are.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 07:57:27 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 11:25:55 AM
Again I've seen figures bandied about left right and centre. Certainly crime is underreported in this jurisdiction generally and specifically sexual crime. I don't think the coverage of this case is going to help in this regard. This leads me on to my issues with this #ibelieveher movement.

Right I have the following issues with the #ibelieveher movement and today's protest for the following reasons.

A doubt many in the movement heard all the evidence in the case. The general public certainly didn't. Without hearing all the evidence it's impossible to have formed any sort of view of this women's credibility. The jury heard all the evidence and in very short order acquitted all 4 defendants. Significantly they acquitted McIlroy too who unlike Jackson and Olding did not have the defence of reasonable belief in consent. The jury could only have done that if they didn't believe the girl. Whilst I acknowledge that jurors can and do make mistakes. Both of those things are significant for me. If they didn't believe her then I think people have every right not to believe her. People shouldn't be castigated or abused for this.

2. The movement is doing more harm than good by spreading misinformation about the criminal justice system. The fact is rape trials are treated differently to any other type of trials. Rape victims are automatically eligible for special measures. Rules about admission of hearsay are less strict and non defendant bad character more strict etc. The criminal justice system does plenty to assist rape victims but this movement is portraying that it doesn't. That will put victims off coming forward.

3. There's a lot of background info that wasn't shared about the girl and for good reason.

4. Any attempt to explain this or reason with the movement has been labelled rape apologists or rapists. That doesn't help anyone

5. They've intensified the scrutiny on an alleged rape victim either deliberately or accidentally. That's counter productive in the extreme and again is likely to discourage rape victims from coming forward.
Excellent post David.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 30, 2018, 09:13:23 PM
Twitter has actually been bats*** crazy last few days. It's crazy the stuff being thrown around against a fast unanimous verdict.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: ONeill on March 30, 2018, 09:16:51 PM
Will people please get off Twitter. For the love of Peter.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 09:37:54 PM
Haven't  seen the twitter stuff but the shite on Facebook would sicken your hole!

I've deleted about 10, I haven't commented about the case on Facebook but by hack I've wanted too
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 10:32:08 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 30, 2018, 09:16:51 PM
Will people please get off Twitter. For the love of Peter.
#Suemepaddy is trending now,  the idea being that people post something derogatory about PJ along with the hashtag. It's like a particularly disturbing episode of Black Mirror at this stage. Paddy probably should have gone down the disingenuous apology written and read by a third party route that seems to have worked for Olding.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 10:46:30 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

A lot of it ain't defamation.

Hopefully Paddy has plenty of time to be suing people over the next six or seven years.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: LooseCannon on March 30, 2018, 10:47:11 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?
Can they pay their corporation tax?  ;)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 30, 2018, 10:48:21 PM
I heard rumours a while ago he could be on his way to france.

Unsure how much truth there may be in it. I suspect he will play again somewhere.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 10:52:59 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 10:46:30 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

A lot of it ain't defamation.

Hopefully Paddy has plenty of time to be suing people over the next six or seven years.

With your legal mind what is defamation ?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?
That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 11:09:14 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?
That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

Nearly as predictable as your stance on everything in this thread.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 11:12:19 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 30, 2018, 11:09:14 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?
That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

Nearly as predictable as your stance on everything in this thread.

Asked you a question but you are full of shit that you avoided it again.. tool
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:18:55 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?
That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 30, 2018, 11:21:13 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:18:55 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?
That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

They where acquitted, let it go
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 11:22:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:18:55 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?
That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Lar Naparka on March 30, 2018, 11:26:35 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 07:57:27 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 30, 2018, 11:25:55 AM
Again I've seen figures bandied about left right and centre. Certainly crime is underreported in this jurisdiction generally and specifically sexual crime. I don't think the coverage of this case is going to help in this regard. This leads me on to my issues with this #ibelieveher movement.

Right I have the following issues with the #ibelieveher movement and today's protest for the following reasons.

A doubt many in the movement heard all the evidence in the case. The general public certainly didn't. Without hearing all the evidence it's impossible to have formed any sort of view of this women's credibility. The jury heard all the evidence and in very short order acquitted all 4 defendants. Significantly they acquitted McIlroy too who unlike Jackson and Olding did not have the defence of reasonable belief in consent. The jury could only have done that if they didn't believe the girl. Whilst I acknowledge that jurors can and do make mistakes. Both of those things are significant for me. If they didn't believe her then I think people have every right not to believe her. People shouldn't be castigated or abused for this.

2. The movement is doing more harm than good by spreading misinformation about the criminal justice system. The fact is rape trials are treated differently to any other type of trials. Rape victims are automatically eligible for special measures. Rules about admission of hearsay are less strict and non defendant bad character more strict etc. The criminal justice system does plenty to assist rape victims but this movement is portraying that it doesn't. That will put victims off coming forward.

3. There's a lot of background info that wasn't shared about the girl and for good reason.

4. Any attempt to explain this or reason with the movement has been labelled rape apologists or rapists. That doesn't help anyone

5. They've intensified the scrutiny on an alleged rape victim either deliberately or accidentally. That's counter productive in the extreme and again is likely to discourage rape victims from coming forward.
Excellent post David.
+1
I definitely second that. Thanks are due to both David and bcb for explaining the legalities in layman's (and woman's?) terms from the beginning of the hearing to the end.
Without their expert commentary, I'd be totally bemused from day one.
Going by what they have said and from what I could make out for myself, the judge handled a very complicated case very well and at all times was in control of proceedings. The legal eagles, for both sides, presented their respective arguments in a competent and professional manner.
Following the judges comprehensive and concise directions, the jury went out to consider the evidence presented to them and returned in a relatively short period of time with a unanimous verdict of Not Guilty in the case of all the defendants.
I appreciate that the complainant went through a horrific ordeal and genuinely feel sorry for her but, after due consideration, the jury felt that the prosecution had not proved their case.
From what I made of what David and bcb had to say, the jury did not believe the complainant's version of what happened in Jackson's bedroom and whether the defendants lied or came from a privileged background was not at issue.
I would also imagine that the jury were influenced by the testimony of the girl who walked into Jackson's bedroom and claimed that the complainant asked her to join in the proceedings.
I can also accept that the complainant has and had the absolute right to her bodily integrity as I heard another lawyer call it and that she had the right to say 'No" even if she had wound up in Jackson's bedroom of her own volition. But the defendants have rights also.
All of them faced the prospect of lengthy prison sentences and all are landed with huge legal costs and, in Jackson's and Olding's cases, the probable ruination of their professional careers.
If they were found guilty after due process, I would have no sympathy for them but the fact is they weren't.
That's where I disagree with the #believeher movement, no matter how well-intentioned at least some of them are. You can't have double legal standards in a democracy.
To protest at the verdict returned by the jury after all sides had their say is to imply that the judge, jury, legal representatives et al got it wrong.
I'm afraid all the evidence suggests otherwise.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:29:26 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 11:22:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:18:55 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?
That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?
I'm well able to read, thanks. If only the same could be said for you.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 11:38:52 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:29:26 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 11:22:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:18:55 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?
That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?
I'm well able to read, thanks. If only the same could be said for you.

You read the case through twitter and still favoured a guilty verdict, well read is something you ain't
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:22:00 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 11:38:52 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:29:26 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 11:22:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:18:55 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?
That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?
I'm well able to read, thanks. If only the same could be said for you.

You read the case through twitter and still favoured a guilty verdict, well read is something you ain't

I'm well read enough to know when to put a full stop at the end of a sentence, at least.

Oh, and I still think they did it, by the way. I'd be quite up front about that.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 12:32:05 AM
Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 12:32:05 AM
Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.
Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 12:41:37 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:22:00 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 11:38:52 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:29:26 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 11:22:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:18:55 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?
That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?
I'm well able to read, thanks. If only the same could be said for you.

You read the case through twitter and still favoured a guilty verdict, well read is something you ain't

I'm well read enough to know when to put a full stop at the end of a sentence, at least.

Oh, and I still think they did it, by the way. I'd be quite up front about that.

Yeah,  you probably think the Birmingham six did it also and the Guildford four!

Full stop! Dick.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:44:39 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 12:41:37 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:22:00 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 11:38:52 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:29:26 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 11:22:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:18:55 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?
That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?
I'm well able to read, thanks. If only the same could be said for you.

You read the case through twitter and still favoured a guilty verdict, well read is something you ain't

I'm well read enough to know when to put a full stop at the end of a sentence, at least.

Oh, and I still think they did it, by the way. I'd be quite up front about that.

Yeah,  you probably think the Birmingham six did it also and the Guildford four!

Full stop! Dick.

No, that would have been you, pal.

Since you're always so confident in the judicial process, like.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 12:46:39 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:44:39 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 12:41:37 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:22:00 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 11:38:52 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:29:26 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 11:22:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:18:55 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?
That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?
I'm well able to read, thanks. If only the same could be said for you.

You read the case through twitter and still favoured a guilty verdict, well read is something you ain't

I'm well read enough to know when to put a full stop at the end of a sentence, at least.

Oh, and I still think they did it, by the way. I'd be quite up front about that.

Yeah,  you probably think the Birmingham six did it also and the Guildford four!

Full stop! Dick.

No, that would have been you, pal.

Since you're always so confident in the judicial process, like.

The same judicial system let them go. Pal
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:48:35 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 12:46:39 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:44:39 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 12:41:37 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:22:00 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 11:38:52 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:29:26 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2018, 11:22:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 30, 2018, 11:18:55 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 30, 2018, 11:07:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 30, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?
That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?
I'm well able to read, thanks. If only the same could be said for you.

You read the case through twitter and still favoured a guilty verdict, well read is something you ain't

I'm well read enough to know when to put a full stop at the end of a sentence, at least.

Oh, and I still think they did it, by the way. I'd be quite up front about that.

Yeah,  you probably think the Birmingham six did it also and the Guildford four!

Full stop! Dick.

No, that would have been you, pal.

Since you're always so confident in the judicial process, like.

The same judicial system let them go. Pal

Yeah, after 14 and 16 years of you thinking them guilty, no doubt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 12:52:35 AM
Nope! Not in the slightest but you probably thought since their release that they should never have got out!

It was an overwhelming verdict and you still believe she was telling the truth? Crave attention much?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 01:01:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 12:32:05 AM
Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.
Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say.  ::)

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 01:08:20 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 12:52:35 AM
Nope! Not in the slightest but you probably thought since their release that they should never have got out!

It was an overwhelming verdict and you still believe she was telling the truth? Crave attention much?

Given that you're a noted troll, that's one of the unintentionally funniest lines I've read on this forum.

Go and look up what not guilty means. It is not a finding of innocence as regards the crime.

And you might learn a bit about the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six while you're at it, given that you're evidently pretty clueless about them. They were proved innocent. The defendants in this case were not.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 01:11:46 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 01:01:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 12:32:05 AM
Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.
Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say.  ::)

Using the term "social justice warrior" is very Twitter alright. It's a tool to try and delegitimise debate. All alt-right terminology is.

By far the most venomous reaction I've seen has been from those who are seeking to vilify the complainant, by the way.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: moysider on March 31, 2018, 01:45:33 AM
People wonder about the reaction to this verdict. In the climate after the Harvey Weinstein revelations, how could anybody have expected any other reaction. I see Rose McGowan said that what happened in Belfast was unacceptable but she must realise also that she would be wasting her time bringing Weinstein to court - and probably any other complainants  else as well. All he has to say, is that they consented. So maybe he is a victim as well and should get his old job back?
I have a problem with three big strong lads taking advantage of a young girl. They were acquitted of rape but it stinks.
The message is that young women should put a bad experience behind them and zip it. Women are encouraged to report stuff like this but when they do, they are subjected to a procedure that is devastating. That's the way it is and I understand why the process is the way it is.
If that girl was my daughter, I would be mad as hell but wouldn't let her go through that. I don't have a daughter but if my sons were accused of something like that, I would expect their lawyers to do everything they could to keep them out of goal. That's how polarised this kind of thing gets.

I read this last Sunday, and at the time I thought about the Belfast verdict coming down the tracks. I couldn't see a conviction. The column doesn't even mention the Belfast case btw.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/magazine/the-sunday-times-magazine/sexual-revolution-2-0-how-to-flirt-and-have-sex-after-metoo-67b0gs2c9
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 01:57:03 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 01:01:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 12:32:05 AM
Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.
Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say.  ::)

Because literally everyone knows it's a loaded alt-right term.

But, sure, go ahead and keep at it and see how many people take you seriously.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 02:06:06 AM
Quote from: moysider on March 31, 2018, 01:45:33 AM
I have a problem with three big strong lads taking advantage of a young girl. They were acquitted of rape but it stinks.
The message is that young women should put a bad experience behind them and zip it. Women are encouraged to report stuff like this but when they do, they are subjected to a procedure that is devastating. That's the way it is and I understand why the process is the way it is.
If that girl was my daughter, I would be mad as hell but wouldn't let her go through that. I don't have a daughter but if my sons were accused of something like that, I would expect their lawyers to do everything they could to keep them out of goal. That's how polarised this kind of thing gets.

None of us has the right info to judge whether it stinks or not in fairness. You may be right and initial non verbal consent to 'get busy' got out of hand but what the hell do you or I know what went or what was in the hearts and minds of the individuals. She may have been complicit up to the point she was seen in compromising state by the woman she didn't know and felt frightened about her reputation at that point. I don't have a clue. All I know is I don't know ... how come so many are certain without holding the facts? Just like child abuse.... young people need to be educated about their responsibilities when it comes to physical relationships because its fraught with risk and very prone to error judgements.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: moysider on March 31, 2018, 02:32:12 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 02:06:06 AM
Quote from: moysider on March 31, 2018, 01:45:33 AM
I have a problem with three big strong lads taking advantage of a young girl. They were acquitted of rape but it stinks.
The message is that young women should put a bad experience behind them and zip it. Women are encouraged to report stuff like this but when they do, they are subjected to a procedure that is devastating. That's the way it is and I understand why the process is the way it is.
If that girl was my daughter, I would be mad as hell but wouldn't let her go through that. I don't have a daughter but if my sons were accused of something like that, I would expect their lawyers to do everything they could to keep them out of goal. That's how polarised this kind of thing gets.

None of us has the right info to judge whether it stinks or not in fairness. You may be right and initial non verbal consent to 'get busy' got out of hand but what the hell do you or I know what went or what was in the hearts and minds of the individuals. She may have been complicit up to the point she was seen in compromising state by the woman she didn't know and felt frightened about her reputation at that point. I don't have a clue. All I know is I don't know ... how come so many are certain without holding the facts? Just like child abuse.... young people need to be educated about their responsibilities when it comes to physical relationships because its fraught with risk and very prone to error judgements.

Is the education just for children and women though? To protect themselves from paedophiles and male sex predators? The lads texts suggest that they are predators bty. Not their first time at a rodeo I would guess,
  Why should children have to take any responsibility for being abused. Are you also implying that girls that are 'raped' put themselves at risk and make poor judegments and so are responsible for what happens to them?
Anyway read the article above. I'm not in a position to give a woman's perspective. I suspect a lot of those people that turned up for those #Ibelieverher rallies have had their own experiences or know sisters or friends that have.
It's more than just this case. This was just a litmus test case and I can understand why a lot of women would feel that the dice is loaded against them.

I don't buy that stuff about being frightened about her reputation. She would have known what was going to happen in court. If anything, the result has destroyed her entirely.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 05:57:06 AM
Oh here we go  :o

You can say nothing in this space without inferences being drawn  :-\

Im simply saying be careful out there BECAUSE people of dubious character exist in the world and the more awareness of the world around us help us make better choices (although risk still exists). No harm in that I don't think is there?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 31, 2018, 06:44:00 AM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/paddy-jackson-to-sue-senator-over-tweet-after-not-guilty-verdict-36759409.htmla
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 31, 2018, 08:43:26 AM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/jackson-warns-critics-after-trial-ill-sue-you-36761205.html
In the wake of the not guilty verdicts in the Ulster rugby rape trial, legal representatives for the player say they are "monitoring everything" including "social media commentary, WhatsApp, Google searches". This also includes protest marches held around the country.
"We are setting down a marker," Mr Jackson's solicitor in Belfast said.

"We won't hesitate to issue proceedings."



It's an admirable stance against the cowardly online vigilante mob. It's a sad reflection of how phoney a society we live in that a man who makes a self-serving PR apology is widely praised while another who stands up for himself is hounded by a mob of idiots. While I feel his bravery will backfire in terms of his career, it's a heroic stance against bullies and the action of a man who fully believes in his own innocence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Itchy on March 31, 2018, 08:50:35 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 01:01:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 12:32:05 AM
Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.
Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say.  ::)

Think you are right skull. There are some very unpleasant people on Twitter fighting a war of some sort and THEY are using this girl to further their agenda. They don't give a shit about the men having the right to a trial. They belong to a group of radical feminists  (I don't believe they are feminists at all). Yesterday i asked one who said "all men rape" was she aware there were 3 women on the jury and she told me I was a rape apologist!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 31, 2018, 09:09:15 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 01:11:46 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 01:01:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 12:32:05 AM
Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.
Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say.  ::)

Using the term "social justice warrior" is very Twitter alright. It's a tool to try and delegitimise debate. All alt-right terminology is.

By far the most venomous reaction I've seen has been from those who are seeking to vilify the complainant, by the way.

Then I suggest you take another look at some of the stuff on the #suemepaddy trend. Its character assassination stuff at this stage. Gary Walsh was turfed off the laois panel for what he said about the complainant (rightly so imo). By comparison, look at what the likes of what @flyingteacosy have said about PJ and it goes completely unchecked.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:18:29 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 31, 2018, 08:43:26 AM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/jackson-warns-critics-after-trial-ill-sue-you-36761205.html
In the wake of the not guilty verdicts in the Ulster rugby rape trial, legal representatives for the player say they are "monitoring everything" including "social media commentary, WhatsApp, Google searches". This also includes protest marches held around the country.
"We are setting down a marker," Mr Jackson's solicitor in Belfast said.

"We won't hesitate to issue proceedings."



It's an admirable stance against the cowardly online vigilante mob. It's a sad reflection of how phoney a society we live in that a man who makes a self-serving PR apology is widely praised while another who stands up for himself is hounded by a mob of idiots. While I feel his bravery will backfire in terms of his career, it's a heroic stance against bullies and the action of a man who fully believes in his own innocence.

While i agree about the "social justice warriors" stuff after everything that has come out i would be very loathe to attach the term heroic to a person who conducts themself the way he does.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: general_lee on March 31, 2018, 09:24:02 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 31, 2018, 09:09:15 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 01:11:46 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 01:01:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 12:32:05 AM
Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.
Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say.  ::)

Using the term "social justice warrior" is very Twitter alright. It's a tool to try and delegitimise debate. All alt-right terminology is.

By far the most venomous reaction I've seen has been from those who are seeking to vilify the complainant, by the way.

Then I suggest you take another look at some of the stuff on the #suemepaddy trend. Its character assassination stuff at this stage. Gary Walsh was turfed off the laois panel for what he said about the complainant (rightly so imo). By comparison, look at what the likes of what @flyingteacosy have said about PJ and it goes completely unchecked.
That flying teacosy woman is a psycho and fits perfectly the stereotypical man-hating militant lesbian.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on March 31, 2018, 09:32:01 AM
"Militant" lesbians? Is that a thing? Is making a load of noise on Twitter a storm of militancy now?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 31, 2018, 09:48:16 AM
Quote from: Itchy on March 31, 2018, 08:50:35 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 01:01:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 12:32:05 AM
Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.
Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say.  ::)

Think you are right skull. There are some very unpleasant people on Twitter fighting a war of some sort and THEY are using this girl to further their agenda. They don't give a shit about the men having the right to a trial. They belong to a group of radical feminists  (I don't believe they are feminists at all). Yesterday i asked one who said "all men rape" was she aware there were 3 women on the jury and she told me I was a rape apologist!

They will soon move on to the next "cause", if they haven't already
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 10:07:39 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:18:29 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 31, 2018, 08:43:26 AM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/jackson-warns-critics-after-trial-ill-sue-you-36761205.html
In the wake of the not guilty verdicts in the Ulster rugby rape trial, legal representatives for the player say they are "monitoring everything" including "social media commentary, WhatsApp, Google searches". This also includes protest marches held around the country.
"We are setting down a marker," Mr Jackson's solicitor in Belfast said.

"We won't hesitate to issue proceedings."



It's an admirable stance against the cowardly online vigilante mob. It's a sad reflection of how phoney a society we live in that a man who makes a self-serving PR apology is widely praised while another who stands up for himself is hounded by a mob of idiots. While I feel his bravery will backfire in terms of his career, it's a heroic stance against bullies and the action of a man who fully believes in his own innocence.

While i agree about the "social justice warriors" stuff after everything that has come out i would be very loathe to attach the term heroic to a person who conducts themself the way he does.

Having a threesome and calling yourself a top shagger is hardly a hanging offence, seems to me thats the norm with these WhatsApps messages with young ones nowadays, not how it was in my day but we weren't saints either when it came to talking about sexual exploits.

The PC brigade are having a fit but if they actually had a look at their sons and daughters phones they'd see stuff that could well fall into what's been shown at this court case..

Remember watching a thing about Colin stag and how he was hounded by everyone. And even after they caught the real killer the accusations  never left him completely, cause people are thick
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dougal Maguire on March 31, 2018, 10:24:49 AM
It's not for me to defend P Jackson or anyone, they wouldn't come out to defend me if the boot was on the other foot, but I have to agree with the above. Lads boast and brag about things, that's the way it's always been and that's the way it will be. These were private messages. They never had any idea they'd become public. People need to loosen up a bit.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dougal Maguire on March 31, 2018, 10:29:16 AM
Absolutely. 100%
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 10:41:43 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 10:07:39 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:18:29 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 31, 2018, 08:43:26 AM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/jackson-warns-critics-after-trial-ill-sue-you-36761205.html
In the wake of the not guilty verdicts in the Ulster rugby rape trial, legal representatives for the player say they are "monitoring everything" including "social media commentary, WhatsApp, Google searches". This also includes protest marches held around the country.
"We are setting down a marker," Mr Jackson's solicitor in Belfast said.

"We won't hesitate to issue proceedings."



It's an admirable stance against the cowardly online vigilante mob. It's a sad reflection of how phoney a society we live in that a man who makes a self-serving PR apology is widely praised while another who stands up for himself is hounded by a mob of idiots. While I feel his bravery will backfire in terms of his career, it's a heroic stance against bullies and the action of a man who fully believes in his own innocence.

While i agree about the "social justice warriors" stuff after everything that has come out i would be very loathe to attach the term heroic to a person who conducts themself the way he does.

Having a threesome and calling yourself a top shagger is hardly a hanging offence, seems to me thats the norm with these WhatsApps messages with young ones nowadays, not how it was in my day but we weren't saints either when it came to talking about sexual exploits.

The PC brigade are having a fit but if they actually had a look at their sons and daughters phones they'd see stuff that could well fall into what's been shown at this court case..

Remember watching a thing about Colin stag and how he was hounded by everyone. And even after they caught the real killer the accusations  never left him completely, cause people are thick

Nor did i say it was. I wouldn't ever deem the guy heroic or brave though which was my point.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on March 31, 2018, 10:44:28 AM
I've neither condemned nor defended them to date as it seemed to be something that got out of hand on a booze fuelled night, however PJ has made a huge mistake suing O'Roirdan over his tweet.   No point making statements regretting your behaviour then taking exception to someone calling you out for that behaviour.  Very poor judgement by his legal advisor.   This could be more damaging to PJs image  than the trial itself.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 31, 2018, 10:46:54 AM
According to Jackson's legal team using a certain twitter hashtag suggesting that you found the complainant's version of events credible (ahem) is defamatory and they're going to set down a marker on social media.

Can't help thinking that this is just keeping the trial running after it's over.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on March 31, 2018, 10:48:27 AM
I hope Paddy does sue left right and centre. Too many f**k wits on social media who think they can say what they want. About time something was done to discourage it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on March 31, 2018, 10:51:04 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on March 31, 2018, 10:48:27 AM
I hope Paddy does sue left right and centre. Too many f**k wits on social media who think they can say what they want. About time something was done to discourage it
There is that temptation but I think it is likely to fan the flames. If he tries to tackle some feminist there will be an ensuing GoFundMe to pay for the bills and accusations of bullying. If I was him I'd keep my head down for a few months waiting for that particular bandwagon to move on elsewhere.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on March 31, 2018, 10:55:38 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 01:57:03 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 01:01:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 12:32:05 AM
Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.
Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say.  ::)

Because literally everyone knows it's a loaded alt-right term.

But, sure, go ahead and keep at it and see how many people take you seriously.

Given the regard you are held in by the posters on this board, I don't think you are in much of a position to give out advice on how to get taken seriously.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on March 31, 2018, 11:00:39 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on March 31, 2018, 10:48:27 AM
I hope Paddy does sue left right and centre. Too many f**k wits on social media who think they can say what they want. About time something was done to discourage it
The trial has become political. Loads of female votes going. PJ should take a deep breath.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: ardtole on March 31, 2018, 11:05:30 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 31, 2018, 10:46:54 AM
According to Jackson's legal team using a certain twitter hashtag suggesting that you found the complainant's version of events credible (ahem) is defamatory and they're going to set down a marker on social media.

Can't help thinking that this is just keeping the trial running after it's over.
To me it would suggest he is very badly advised. I have very little faith in the legal profession a lot of them are happy to prolong their case, squeeze as much money as they can out of each situation and not always in their clients interest.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on March 31, 2018, 11:06:00 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 31, 2018, 10:51:04 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on March 31, 2018, 10:48:27 AM
I hope Paddy does sue left right and centre. Too many f**k wits on social media who think they can say what they want. About time something was done to discourage it
There is that temptation but I think it is likely to fan the flames. If he tries to tackle some feminist there will be an ensuing GoFundMe to pay for the bills and accusations of bullying. If I was him I'd keep my head down for a few months waiting for that particular bandwagon to move on elsewhere.

If I was him I would go for the high profile targets like the senator but can think of plenty of others such as an ex NI politician. His name has been ruined anyway so he has nothing further to lose.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on March 31, 2018, 11:33:26 AM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on March 31, 2018, 10:44:28 AM
I've neither condemned nor defended them to date as it seemed to be something that got out of hand on a booze fuelled night, however PJ has made a huge mistake suing O'Roirdan over his tweet.   No point making statements regretting your behaviour then taking exception to someone calling you out for that behaviour.  Very poor judgement by his legal advisor.   This could be more damaging to PJs image  than the trial itself.

Did the tweet not basically say he got away with it because he was middle class? That's a big difference from calling them out on their behaviour, so that tweet would be fair game I would have thought & is totally moronic from O'Riordan
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 31, 2018, 11:36:46 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on March 31, 2018, 11:06:00 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 31, 2018, 10:51:04 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on March 31, 2018, 10:48:27 AM
I hope Paddy does sue left right and centre. Too many f**k wits on social media who think they can say what they want. About time something was done to discourage it
There is that temptation but I think it is likely to fan the flames. If he tries to tackle some feminist there will be an ensuing GoFundMe to pay for the bills and accusations of bullying. If I was him I'd keep my head down for a few months waiting for that particular bandwagon to move on elsewhere.

If I was him I would go for the high profile targets like the senator but can think of plenty of others such as an ex NI politician. His name has been ruined anyway so he has nothing further to lose.

If it's the former politician I'm thinking of she has had a vendetta against males for a long time.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on March 31, 2018, 01:08:27 PM
Worth a read, quite a few in the public gallery need to take a look at themselves.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/laughter-jeers-and-scoffs-at-woman-from-the-public-gallery-were-simply-shocking-36760983.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/laughter-jeers-and-scoffs-at-woman-from-the-public-gallery-were-simply-shocking-36760983.html)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 31, 2018, 01:17:13 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on March 31, 2018, 10:25:32 AM
Am I the only one who thinks that those whom have been tweeting #imwithher and #suemepaddy and getting involved in related public demos mainly on the basis of fighting sexism, macho culture and patriarchy are actually inadvertently reinforcing it?
You're certainly not the only one. Very good point.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 31, 2018, 01:26:54 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 31, 2018, 01:08:27 PM
Worth a read, quite a few in the public gallery need to take a look at themselves.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/laughter-jeers-and-scoffs-at-woman-from-the-public-gallery-were-simply-shocking-36760983.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/laughter-jeers-and-scoffs-at-woman-from-the-public-gallery-were-simply-shocking-36760983.html)
A disgraceful setting for a rape trial. This is the kind of stuff they should be protesting about, not a verdict that was correct or acquitted men getting on with their lives.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AQMP on March 31, 2018, 01:38:28 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 31, 2018, 01:08:27 PM
Worth a read, quite a few in the public gallery need to take a look at themselves.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/laughter-jeers-and-scoffs-at-woman-from-the-public-gallery-were-simply-shocking-36760983.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/laughter-jeers-and-scoffs-at-woman-from-the-public-gallery-were-simply-shocking-36760983.html)
Did these bellends think it was some sort of reality TV show??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: StGallsGAA on March 31, 2018, 01:42:26 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 31, 2018, 11:33:26 AM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on March 31, 2018, 10:44:28 AM
I've neither condemned nor defended them to date as it seemed to be something that got out of hand on a booze fuelled night, however PJ has made a huge mistake suing O'Roirdan over his tweet.   No point making statements regretting your behaviour then taking exception to someone calling you out for that behaviour.  Very poor judgement by his legal advisor.   This could be more damaging to PJs image  than the trial itself.

Did the tweet not basically say he got away with it because he was middle class? That's a big difference from calling them out on their behaviour, so that tweet would be fair game I would have thought & is totally moronic from O'Riordan
The tweet is online if you Google it.  He refers to "smug well-connected middle-class boys".   
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: thebuzz on March 31, 2018, 02:11:34 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 31, 2018, 10:55:38 AM
Quote from: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 01:57:03 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 01:01:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 12:32:05 AM
Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.
Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say.  ::)

Because literally everyone knows it's a loaded alt-right term.

But, sure, go ahead and keep at it and see how many people take you seriously.

Given the regard you are held in by the posters on this board, I don't think you are in much of a position to give out advice on how to get taken seriously.

Never saw truer words written. I used to think that everyone who gave you a hard time was wrong Syferus but you are definitely your own worst enemy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 07:01:42 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 31, 2018, 09:09:15 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 01:11:46 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 01:01:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 12:32:05 AM
Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.
Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say.  ::)

Using the term "social justice warrior" is very Twitter alright. It's a tool to try and delegitimise debate. All alt-right terminology is.

By far the most venomous reaction I've seen has been from those who are seeking to vilify the complainant, by the way.

Then I suggest you take another look at some of the stuff on the #suemepaddy trend. Its character assassination stuff at this stage. Gary Walsh was turfed off the laois panel for what he said about the complainant (rightly so imo). By comparison, look at what the likes of what @flyingteacosy have said about PJ and it goes completely unchecked.

You'd wonder why some women have an "attitude". And then you wouldn't.

(https://tfk.thefreekick.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/c/8/c8080e139c8ecb4d029018f3edd8aae27678cee7_1_582x500.jpg)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 07:06:31 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 07:01:42 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 31, 2018, 09:09:15 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 01:11:46 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 01:01:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 12:32:05 AM
Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.
Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say.  ::)

Using the term "social justice warrior" is very Twitter alright. It's a tool to try and delegitimise debate. All alt-right terminology is.

By far the most venomous reaction I've seen has been from those who are seeking to vilify the complainant, by the way.

Then I suggest you take another look at some of the stuff on the #suemepaddy trend. Its character assassination stuff at this stage. Gary Walsh was turfed off the laois panel for what he said about the complainant (rightly so imo). By comparison, look at what the likes of what @flyingteacosy have said about PJ and it goes completely unchecked.

You'd wonder why some women have an "attitude". And then you wouldn't.

(https://tfk.thefreekick.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/c/8/c8080e139c8ecb4d029018f3edd8aae27678cee7_1_582x500.jpg)

Why one side of this 'debate' (there shouldn't a debate that there is a serious problem in the first place) seem to refuse to acknowledge is that one side is completely a reaction to the behaviour of the other. It's not an invented issue. Women didn't suddenly decide rape was a problem with the advent of the internet and social media. They just didn't have much of a voice on anything until the last half century or less, even in this country. There's a hell of a lot of catching up to do.

The same platforms that let hysteria flourish in some quarters have also allowed many positive grassroots movements to form and grab society's attention. One side just wants people to shut up and stop spoiling their simple worldview with contrary information. That's sad.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 07:47:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

You have absolutely no conception of what the verdict means if you actually think this.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:55:57 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 07:47:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

You have absolutely no conception of what the verdict means if you actually think this.

Well I've as much knowledge of the law as you, which is nothing! Law degree? At the court each day? If not then exactly the same
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 08:04:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:55:57 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 07:47:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

You have absolutely no conception of what the verdict means if you actually think this.

Well I've as much knowledge of the law as you, which is nothing! Law degree? At the court each day? If not then exactly the same

Best quit now.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 08:21:52 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 08:04:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:55:57 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 07:47:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

You have absolutely no conception of what the verdict means if you actually think this.

Well I've as much knowledge of the law as you, which is nothing! Law degree? At the court each day? If not then exactly the same

Best quit now.

Why? Have you produced anything even remotely close to having some insight into how courts work?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: OgraAnDun on March 31, 2018, 08:40:46 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

I have f/all knowledge of the law either, but surely there was simply insufficient evidence to convict them (or any defendant), rather than the complainant is a liar. Otherwise the courts would find people 'innocent' rather than simply 'not guilty'?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 31, 2018, 08:45:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 07:06:31 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 07:01:42 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 31, 2018, 09:09:15 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 01:11:46 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 01:01:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 12:32:05 AM
Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.
Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say.  ::)

Using the term "social justice warrior" is very Twitter alright. It's a tool to try and delegitimise debate. All alt-right terminology is.

By far the most venomous reaction I've seen has been from those who are seeking to vilify the complainant, by the way.

Then I suggest you take another look at some of the stuff on the #suemepaddy trend. Its character assassination stuff at this stage. Gary Walsh was turfed off the laois panel for what he said about the complainant (rightly so imo). By comparison, look at what the likes of what @flyingteacosy have said about PJ and it goes completely unchecked.

You'd wonder why some women have an "attitude". And then you wouldn't.

(https://tfk.thefreekick.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/c/8/c8080e139c8ecb4d029018f3edd8aae27678cee7_1_582x500.jpg)

Why one side of this 'debate' (there shouldn't a debate that there is a serious problem in the first place) seem to refuse to acknowledge is that one side is completely a reaction to the behaviour of the other. It's not an invented issue. Women didn't suddenly decide rape was a problem with the advent of the internet and social media. They just didn't have much of a voice on anything until the last half century or less, even in this country. There's a hell of a lot of catching up to do.

The same platforms that let hysteria flourish in some quarters have also allowed many positive grassroots movements to form and grab society's attention. One side just wants people to shut up and stop spoiling their simple worldview with contrary information. That's sad.
This is your most hilarious bit yet. These hashtag movements have been vicious in seeking to destroy anyone who's voiced a differing opinion. Rory Best almost had to quit as Irish captain for attending a day of the trial of his close friend who was and still is an innocent man in the eyes of the law, such was the online backlash he faced.

It's the vindictiveness, constant personalising of the debate ("victim blamer/mysogonist" etc), pontificating about the legal system despite knowing little about it and flat-out illegal defamation of men who were innocent until proven guilty and who've now been acquitted, that angers people . Thank God we don't have any of that around here.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 08:50:13 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 31, 2018, 08:45:28 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 07:06:31 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 07:01:42 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 31, 2018, 09:09:15 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 01:11:46 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 01:01:50 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 31, 2018, 12:32:05 AM
Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.
Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say.  ::)

Using the term "social justice warrior" is very Twitter alright. It's a tool to try and delegitimise debate. All alt-right terminology is.

By far the most venomous reaction I've seen has been from those who are seeking to vilify the complainant, by the way.

Then I suggest you take another look at some of the stuff on the #suemepaddy trend. Its character assassination stuff at this stage. Gary Walsh was turfed off the laois panel for what he said about the complainant (rightly so imo). By comparison, look at what the likes of what @flyingteacosy have said about PJ and it goes completely unchecked.

You'd wonder why some women have an "attitude". And then you wouldn't.

(https://tfk.thefreekick.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/c/8/c8080e139c8ecb4d029018f3edd8aae27678cee7_1_582x500.jpg)

Why one side of this 'debate' (there shouldn't a debate that there is a serious problem in the first place) seem to refuse to acknowledge is that one side is completely a reaction to the behaviour of the other. It's not an invented issue. Women didn't suddenly decide rape was a problem with the advent of the internet and social media. They just didn't have much of a voice on anything until the last half century or less, even in this country. There's a hell of a lot of catching up to do.

The same platforms that let hysteria flourish in some quarters have also allowed many positive grassroots movements to form and grab society's attention. One side just wants people to shut up and stop spoiling their simple worldview with contrary information. That's sad.
This is your most hilarious bit yet. These hashtag movements have been vicious in seeking to destroy anyone who's voiced a differing opinion. Rory Best almost had to quit as Irish captain for attending a day of the trial of his close friend who was and still is an innocent man in the eyes of the law, such was the online backlash he faced.

It's the vindictiveness, constant personalising of the debate ("victim blamer/mysogonist" etc), pontificating about the legal system despite knowing little about it and flat-out illegal defamation of men who were innocent until proven guilty and who've now been acquitted, that angers people . Thank God we don't have any of that around here.

I have no interest in the views of someone who consistently and in bad faith tried to paint the complainant as a promiscuous liar, entirely ignored evidence of systematic biases preventing rap convictions and demonised anti-sexual assault movements to boot.

You've been outed - you don't get to play the role of a respectable commenter on this topic.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 09:08:45 PM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on March 31, 2018, 08:40:46 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

I have f/all knowledge of the law either, but surely there was simply insufficient evidence to convict them (or any defendant), rather than the complainant is a liar. Otherwise the courts would find people 'innocent' rather than simply 'not guilty'?

Well if the jury thought she was telling the truth would Jackson an co be in jail?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:18:48 PM
so if you have one perception of an event and I have another who is the liar mr?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 09:23:05 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:18:48 PM
so if you have one perception of an event and I have another who is the liar mr?

The one with the vagina.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 31, 2018, 09:23:24 PM
Will Jackson get a big pay off from Ulster to cancel his contract? Surely they cant simply sack him or they would have to pay him even more?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 09:24:20 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 31, 2018, 09:23:24 PM
Will Jackson get a big pay off from Ulster to cancel his contract? Surely they cant simply sack him or they would have to pay him even more?

If the IRFU don't have a morals clause in it I would be absolutely amazed.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 09:24:47 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:18:48 PM
so if you have one perception of an event and I have another who is the liar mr?

Well if 11 people hear the same event and all of them come to the same conclusion Who would you go with?

If you set aside your gut feeling and go with what's been heard by the jury you have to accept that they got it right, no?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:34:27 PM
I never thought they would be found guilty. There was too much "reasonable doubt". That is very different from saying the girl is a liar. If she was found out to be telling lies - which she wasn't - she would be in trouble with the law.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on March 31, 2018, 09:36:30 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 31, 2018, 09:23:24 PM
Will Jackson get a big pay off from Ulster to cancel his contract? Surely they cant simply sack him or they would have to pay him even more?
I heard Shane Horgan saying that all the players have morality clauses but in what proven way has he broken it? He replied to a private message about a spit roast saying there was a lot of spit but it was a private message so that's hardly grounds to cancel it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 31, 2018, 09:43:45 PM
Quote from: Syferus on March 31, 2018, 07:47:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

You have absolutely no conception of what the verdict means if you actually think this.
So Syf, are you saying that her initially saying that Olding raped her vaginally was not a lie? Even though she changed her story about Olding by the time the trial came around?

I don't expect a straight answer by the way. I have a feeling the wires in your brain work differently to most people.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: nrico2006 on March 31, 2018, 09:45:18 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 31, 2018, 09:36:30 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 31, 2018, 09:23:24 PM
Will Jackson get a big pay off from Ulster to cancel his contract? Surely they cant simply sack him or they would have to pay him even more?
I heard Shane Horgan saying that all the players have morality clauses but in what proven way has he broken it? He replied to a private message about a spit roast saying there was a lot of spit but it was a private message so that's hardly grounds to cancel it.

My thoughts too. What happened did so in the privacy of his own home and the texts came out via court so it would be hard to see how he could be hooked on that.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 09:49:51 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:34:27 PM
I never thought they would be found guilty. There was too much "reasonable doubt". That is very different from saying the girl is a liar. If she was found out to be telling lies - which she wasn't - she would be in trouble with the law.

So she didn't lie about Olding having sex with her?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 31, 2018, 09:53:21 PM
I think they'll both start next season at new clubs in England or France.

But I wouldnt rule out them returning to different provinces in the future. If the "fallout" with Ulster had happened over less controversial circumstance then Jackson to Munster could have been a great fit.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 09:49:51 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:34:27 PM
I never thought they would be found guilty. There was too much "reasonable doubt". That is very different from saying the girl is a liar. If she was found out to be telling lies - which she wasn't - she would be in trouble with the law.

So she didn't lie about Olding having sex with her?

I dunno.

Likewise i dunno if jackson lied about not having sex with her.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on March 31, 2018, 10:23:27 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 31, 2018, 09:53:21 PM
I think they'll both start next season at new clubs in England or France.

But I wouldnt rule out them returning to different provinces in the future. If the "fallout" with Ulster had happened over less controversial circumstance then Jackson to Munster could have been a great fit.

well Muster were happy enough to take a drug cheat...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 10:23:50 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 09:49:51 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:34:27 PM
I never thought they would be found guilty. There was too much "reasonable doubt". That is very different from saying the girl is a liar. If she was found out to be telling lies - which she wasn't - she would be in trouble with the law.

So she didn't lie about Olding having sex with her?

I dunno.

Likewise i dunno if jackson lied about not having sex with her.

If the woman was lying, she wouldn't have gone through an ordeal and would have had no trauma.

Some people here apparently think that rape trauma is not a real thing.

It is very much a real thing, and leads to confusion and fragmented memory.

Even more so after 30 hours without sleep, which she had been when she was examined at the Rowan centre.

A great deal of store has been placed on Dara Florence's evidence.

If you believe Dara Florence was telling the truth, you believe, by definition, that Paddy Jackson lied about having vaginal sex with the complainant.

That's a serious double bind.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on March 31, 2018, 10:28:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 10:23:50 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 09:49:51 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:34:27 PM
I never thought they would be found guilty. There was too much "reasonable doubt". That is very different from saying the girl is a liar. If she was found out to be telling lies - which she wasn't - she would be in trouble with the law.

So she didn't lie about Olding having sex with her?

I dunno.

Likewise i dunno if jackson lied about not having sex with her.

If the woman was lying, she wouldn't have gone through an ordeal and would have had no trauma.

Some people here apparently think that rape trauma is not a real thing.

It is very much a real thing, and leads to confusion and fragmented memory.

Even more so after 30 hours without sleep, which she had been when she was examined at the Rowan centre.

A great deal of store has been placed on Dara Florence's evidence.

If you believe Dara Florence was telling the truth, you believe, by definition, that Paddy Jackson lied about having vaginal sex with the complainant.

That's a serious double bind.

When she was examined by defence she admitted she couldn't see his thing or her thing, so would be unable to say with certainty they were having sex.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 10:31:36 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 09:49:51 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:34:27 PM
I never thought they would be found guilty. There was too much "reasonable doubt". That is very different from saying the girl is a liar. If she was found out to be telling lies - which she wasn't - she would be in trouble with the law.

So she didn't lie about Olding having sex with her?

I dunno.

Likewise i dunno if jackson lied about not having sex with her.

I asked one question about the IP and you said you dunno?

Then you answered with a separate question.. it's fair to say she lied about that retracted it (cause it never happened? ) so in my view she lied.. what PJ said was probably also a lie but there was no physical evidence to back up what DF said
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on March 31, 2018, 10:45:30 PM
There was a lot of lying from both  sides because no one could face the truth
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 10:47:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 10:49:07 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on March 31, 2018, 10:45:30 PM
There was a lot of lying from both  sides because no one could face the truth

Lying or completey pissed
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 10:49:22 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 31, 2018, 10:28:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 10:23:50 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 09:49:51 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:34:27 PM
I never thought they would be found guilty. There was too much "reasonable doubt". That is very different from saying the girl is a liar. If she was found out to be telling lies - which she wasn't - she would be in trouble with the law.

So she didn't lie about Olding having sex with her?

I dunno.

Likewise i dunno if jackson lied about not having sex with her.

If the woman was lying, she wouldn't have gone through an ordeal and would have had no trauma.

Some people here apparently think that rape trauma is not a real thing.

It is very much a real thing, and leads to confusion and fragmented memory.

Even more so after 30 hours without sleep, which she had been when she was examined at the Rowan centre.

A great deal of store has been placed on Dara Florence's evidence.

If you believe Dara Florence was telling the truth, you believe, by definition, that Paddy Jackson lied about having vaginal sex with the complainant.

That's a serious double bind.

When she was examined by defence she admitted she couldn't see his thing or her thing, so would be unable to say with certainty they were having sex.

Florence was the only person in the house who hadn't been drinking.

"100% I saw sex" is a very categorical assessment of what was happening.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 31, 2018, 10:53:48 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 10:49:22 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 31, 2018, 10:28:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 10:23:50 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 09:49:51 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:34:27 PM
I never thought they would be found guilty. There was too much "reasonable doubt". That is very different from saying the girl is a liar. If she was found out to be telling lies - which she wasn't - she would be in trouble with the law.

So she didn't lie about Olding having sex with her?

I dunno.

Likewise i dunno if jackson lied about not having sex with her.

If the woman was lying, she wouldn't have gone through an ordeal and would have had no trauma.

Some people here apparently think that rape trauma is not a real thing.

It is very much a real thing, and leads to confusion and fragmented memory.

Even more so after 30 hours without sleep, which she had been when she was examined at the Rowan centre.

A great deal of store has been placed on Dara Florence's evidence.

If you believe Dara Florence was telling the truth, you believe, by definition, that Paddy Jackson lied about having vaginal sex with the complainant.

That's a serious double bind.

When she was examined by defence she admitted she couldn't see his thing or her thing, so would be unable to say with certainty they were having sex.

Florence was the only person in the house who hadn't been drinking.

"100% I saw sex" is a very categorical assessment of what was happening.
yeah, she said she saw consensual sex, but didnt see any private parts of either PJ or complainant
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:06:48 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 10:47:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 11:12:37 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 31, 2018, 10:53:48 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 10:49:22 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 31, 2018, 10:28:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 10:23:50 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 09:49:51 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:34:27 PM
I never thought they would be found guilty. There was too much "reasonable doubt". That is very different from saying the girl is a liar. If she was found out to be telling lies - which she wasn't - she would be in trouble with the law.

So she didn't lie about Olding having sex with her?

I dunno.

Likewise i dunno if jackson lied about not having sex with her.

If the woman was lying, she wouldn't have gone through an ordeal and would have had no trauma.

Some people here apparently think that rape trauma is not a real thing.

It is very much a real thing, and leads to confusion and fragmented memory.

Even more so after 30 hours without sleep, which she had been when she was examined at the Rowan centre.

A great deal of store has been placed on Dara Florence's evidence.

If you believe Dara Florence was telling the truth, you believe, by definition, that Paddy Jackson lied about having vaginal sex with the complainant.

That's a serious double bind.

When she was examined by defence she admitted she couldn't see his thing or her thing, so would be unable to say with certainty they were having sex.

Florence was the only person in the house who hadn't been drinking.

"100% I saw sex" is a very categorical assessment of what was happening.
yeah, she said she saw consensual sex, but didnt see any private parts of either PJ or complainant

Most likely because it was in a particular place where she couldn't see it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 11:17:25 PM
you know more than me on these matters david and me and mr know about the same...

So does the fact that they got off mean she is deemed a liar by the law? I wouldn't have thought it does? Surely there are many nuances to the whole thing and the whole thing does not mean that "in the eyes of the law she is a liar"?

If she is a liar in the eyes of the law would she not be prosecuted?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 11:19:27 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 11:17:25 PM
you know more than me on these matters david and me and mr know about the same...

So does the fact that they got off mean she is deemed a liar by the law? I wouldn't have thought it does? Surely there are many nuances to the whole thing and the whole thing does not mean that "in the eyes of the law she is a liar"?

If she is a liar in the eyes of the law would she not be prosecuted?

My beef is mainly with the I believer her crowd.. you've bought into it, it seems
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:40:47 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 11:17:25 PM
you know more than me on these matters david and me and mr know about the same...

So does the fact that they got off mean she is deemed a liar by the law? I wouldn't have thought it does? Surely there are many nuances to the whole thing and the whole thing does not mean that "in the eyes of the law she is a liar"?

If she is a liar in the eyes of the law would she not be prosecuted?

If you mean is she likely to be prosecuted for perjury? Then no she is not, infact its incredibly rare that anyone is prosecuted for perjury any more particularly if they are a complainant or a defendant.  Less rare if they are a witness but still rare.  The lack of a perjury charge should not be seen as some sort of vindication that the complaint (or the defendants) should be seen as telling the truth.

So there really isn't such a thing as in the eyes of the law she is a liar.  One of the roles for the jury was to asses the complainants credibility.  If they believed the complainant its difficult to see how they acquitted McIlroy (its easy to see how Olding and Jackson were acquitted as they would have had a defence of reasonable belief in consent) As a result its very unfair to castigate anyone who would say the jury didn't think she was lying (at least as it relates to McIlroy) as it implies something nefarious or inherently wrong with the process which I don't think there was. From that verdict it appears to me more likely that the jury thought she was lying than that they believed her.  Just to add unlike me they had the benefit of all the evidence live and could assess the body language and demeanour of those giving evidence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 11:45:49 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:06:48 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 10:47:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.

The jury may well have had strong belief in the complainant on this charge.

However McIlroy's version was that he entered the room and received oral sex from the complainant, and was talking to Jackson while this was occurring.

Jackson's version was that McIlroy didn't enter the room at all.

Thus, McIlroy's and Jackson's accounts may have placed a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds on this charge.

Strong belief = not guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on March 31, 2018, 11:55:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 11:45:49 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:06:48 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 10:47:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.

The jury may well have had strong belief in the complainant on this charge.

However McIlroy's version was that he entered the room and received oral sex from the complainant, and was talking to Jackson while this was occurring.

Jackson's version was that McIlroy didn't enter the room at all.

Thus, McIlroy's and Jackson's accounts may have placed a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds on this charge.

Strong belief = not guilty.
Perhaps. It would be interesting to hear the actual reasoning of the jury. But I'd be very surprised if they gave any credence to McIlroy's story. Inconsistencies from the complainant and Dara Florence saying it looked consensual was more likely to have convinced the jury IMO.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:58:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 11:45:49 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:06:48 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 10:47:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.

The jury may well have had strong belief in the complainant on this charge.

However McIlroy's version was that he entered the room and received oral sex from the complainant, and was talking to Jackson while this was occurring.

Jackson's version was that McIlroy didn't enter the room at all.

Thus, McIlroy's and Jackson's accounts may have placed a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds on this charge.

Strong belief = not guilty.

I think Jackson's version was actually that he didn't see McIlory enter the room or have oral sex with her but he had no reason to doubt McIlory but assuming you are correct you think two completely contradictory alternative versions to the complainants was enough to make the jury not believe the complainant?  I find that highly doubtful particularly if as we keep hearing the defendants were such bad witnesses.

All we know for sure is the Jury did not believe the complainant about what happened with McIlroy.  Anything else is speculation.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on April 01, 2018, 12:59:31 AM
Quote from: Hound on March 31, 2018, 10:53:48 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 10:49:22 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 31, 2018, 10:28:10 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 10:23:50 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 09:49:51 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 09:34:27 PM
I never thought they would be found guilty. There was too much "reasonable doubt". That is very different from saying the girl is a liar. If she was found out to be telling lies - which she wasn't - she would be in trouble with the law.

So she didn't lie about Olding having sex with her?

I dunno.

Likewise i dunno if jackson lied about not having sex with her.

If the woman was lying, she wouldn't have gone through an ordeal and would have had no trauma.

Some people here apparently think that rape trauma is not a real thing.

It is very much a real thing, and leads to confusion and fragmented memory.

Even more so after 30 hours without sleep, which she had been when she was examined at the Rowan centre.

A great deal of store has been placed on Dara Florence's evidence.

If you believe Dara Florence was telling the truth, you believe, by definition, that Paddy Jackson lied about having vaginal sex with the complainant.

That's a serious double bind.

When she was examined by defence she admitted she couldn't see his thing or her thing, so would be unable to say with certainty they were having sex.

Florence was the only person in the house who hadn't been drinking.

"100% I saw sex" is a very categorical assessment of what was happening.
yeah, she said she saw consensual sex, but didnt see any private parts of either PJ or complainant
She said in court  "I would say 100% I saw sex, from the (Jackson's) movement,"
She said in her police statement that "her impression was that she saw not a non-consensual act".
An impression is not a 100% certainty.
However she was 100% certain she saw sex  and in my book that testimony has at least equal or even bit more value than an  impression of witnessing a consensual act.
I would consider that 100% certainty as evidence of a discrepancy in the accused's statements, at least equal to the much focused upon complainant's discrepancy.






Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 01:11:06 AM
The complainant's evidence is always going to be the subject of more scrutiny and debate.  Ultimately you can not believe the defendants and still either convict or acquit them. After all they do not have to prove anything.  You can not however not believe the complainant and still convict
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 01, 2018, 01:18:36 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:58:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 11:45:49 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:06:48 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 10:47:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.

The jury may well have had strong belief in the complainant on this charge.

However McIlroy's version was that he entered the room and received oral sex from the complainant, and was talking to Jackson while this was occurring.

Jackson's version was that McIlroy didn't enter the room at all.

Thus, McIlroy's and Jackson's accounts may have placed a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds on this charge.

Strong belief = not guilty.

I think Jackson's version was actually that he didn't see McIlory enter the room or have oral sex with her but he had no reason to doubt McIlory but assuming you are correct you think two completely contradictory alternative versions to the complainants was enough to make the jury not believe the complainant?  I find that highly doubtful particularly if as we keep hearing the defendants were such bad witnesses.

All we know for sure is the Jury did not believe the complainant about what happened with McIlroy.  Anything else is speculation.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/paddy-jackson-says-he-would-have-gone-to-police-if-told-of-rape-allegation-1.3418181

Mr McIlroy's counsel asked Mr Jackson about his evidence that he never saw Mr McIlroy in the room. Mr McIlroy told police he was in the room and received oral sex from the woman while Mr Jackson was there.

Mr Jackson agreed with counsel he was drunk and very tired by the end of the night. He said it was possible he could have been drifting in and out of consciousness when the complainant was leaving his bedroom.

Counsel put it to Mr Jackson that his client says Mr Jackson was doing something with the woman while she performed oral sex on Mr McIlroy.

"That didn't happen," Mr Jackson said, adding: "He wasn't in the room".

He said he could think of no reason for Mr McIlroy to lie about being in the room.

------

My take is that is that the contradictory testimony of the defendants as well as the testimony of Florence created a sort of "fog of war" scenario. Ultimately the weight of having four different defendants with conflicting stories confused the hell out of the jury who basically didn't know what was what by the end of the trial and thus had to acquit on all counts.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 01:48:04 AM
So again the jury didn't believe the complainant at least in respect of her allegation against McIlroy. Did Florence give any evidence regarding McIlroy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 01, 2018, 01:54:21 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 01:48:04 AM
So again the jury didn't believe the complainant at least in respect of her allegation against McIlroy. Did Florence give any evidence regarding McIlroy.
Again, strong belief = not guilty.

I don't recall Florence giving any evidence that would have materially affected the charge against McIlroy, I think she had left the house, along with Clare Matthews, by the time of the alleged incident involving him.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on April 01, 2018, 08:02:44 AM
For what it is worth David I don't think there is anything wrong with the process as I don't see how on what was known for definite they could have convicted.  I just don't think it is correct to say in the eyes of the law the girl is a liar.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on April 01, 2018, 08:15:10 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 01, 2018, 01:18:36 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:58:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 11:45:49 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:06:48 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 10:47:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.

The jury may well have had strong belief in the complainant on this charge.

However McIlroy's version was that he entered the room and received oral sex from the complainant, and was talking to Jackson while this was occurring.

Jackson's version was that McIlroy didn't enter the room at all.

Thus, McIlroy's and Jackson's accounts may have placed a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds on this charge.

Strong belief = not guilty.

I think Jackson's version was actually that he didn't see McIlory enter the room or have oral sex with her but he had no reason to doubt McIlory but assuming you are correct you think two completely contradictory alternative versions to the complainants was enough to make the jury not believe the complainant?  I find that highly doubtful particularly if as we keep hearing the defendants were such bad witnesses.

All we know for sure is the Jury did not believe the complainant about what happened with McIlroy.  Anything else is speculation.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/paddy-jackson-says-he-would-have-gone-to-police-if-told-of-rape-allegation-1.3418181

Mr McIlroy's counsel asked Mr Jackson about his evidence that he never saw Mr McIlroy in the room. Mr McIlroy told police he was in the room and received oral sex from the woman while Mr Jackson was there.

Mr Jackson agreed with counsel he was drunk and very tired by the end of the night. He said it was possible he could have been drifting in and out of consciousness when the complainant was leaving his bedroom.

Counsel put it to Mr Jackson that his client says Mr Jackson was doing something with the woman while she performed oral sex on Mr McIlroy.

"That didn't happen," Mr Jackson said, adding: "He wasn't in the room".

He said he could think of no reason for Mr McIlroy to lie about being in the room.

------

My take is that is that the contradictory testimony of the defendants as well as the testimony of Florence created a sort of "fog of war" scenario. Ultimately the weight of having four different defendants with conflicting stories confused the hell out of the jury who basically didn't know what was what by the end of the trial and thus had to acquit on all counts.
That's quite a take Sid but they reached not guilty verdicts for all 4 defendants in four hours. Surely in the scenario you're desperately clinging to there would have been a long period of deliberation followed by a hung jury. The notion that you acquit multiple defendants because their lies are too conflicting and confusing despite having a strong belief in the complainant's evidence is insane. As David has said if they had any faith in the girl's evidence Mcillroy would have been convicted. There is zero to corroborate his story even from his fellow defendants and he came across very stongly as an arrogant bullshitter in the messages.

I'm honestly unsure if that last paragraph is a wind-up Sid as you surely can't believe it to be the case when the verdict was reached unanimously and so quickly.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 08:47:46 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 01, 2018, 08:02:44 AM
For what it is worth David I don't think there is anything wrong with the process as I don't see how on what was known for definite they could have convicted.  I just don't think it is correct to say in the eyes of the law the girl is a liar.

Fair enough but again all we know is the jury didn't believe her about McIlroy.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:05:53 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 08:47:46 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 01, 2018, 08:02:44 AM
For what it is worth David I don't think there is anything wrong with the process as I don't see how on what was known for definite they could have convicted.  I just don't think it is correct to say in the eyes of the law the girl is a liar.

Fair enough but again all we know is the jury didn't believe her about McIlroy.
So if they didn't believe her then that makes her a...?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 09:09:05 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 01, 2018, 08:15:10 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 01, 2018, 01:18:36 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:58:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 11:45:49 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:06:48 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 10:47:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.

The jury may well have had strong belief in the complainant on this charge.

However McIlroy's version was that he entered the room and received oral sex from the complainant, and was talking to Jackson while this was occurring.

Jackson's version was that McIlroy didn't enter the room at all.

Thus, McIlroy's and Jackson's accounts may have placed a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds on this charge.

Strong belief = not guilty.

I think Jackson's version was actually that he didn't see McIlory enter the room or have oral sex with her but he had no reason to doubt McIlory but assuming you are correct you think two completely contradictory alternative versions to the complainants was enough to make the jury not believe the complainant?  I find that highly doubtful particularly if as we keep hearing the defendants were such bad witnesses.

All we know for sure is the Jury did not believe the complainant about what happened with McIlroy.  Anything else is speculation.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/paddy-jackson-says-he-would-have-gone-to-police-if-told-of-rape-allegation-1.3418181

Mr McIlroy's counsel asked Mr Jackson about his evidence that he never saw Mr McIlroy in the room. Mr McIlroy told police he was in the room and received oral sex from the woman while Mr Jackson was there.

Mr Jackson agreed with counsel he was drunk and very tired by the end of the night. He said it was possible he could have been drifting in and out of consciousness when the complainant was leaving his bedroom.

Counsel put it to Mr Jackson that his client says Mr Jackson was doing something with the woman while she performed oral sex on Mr McIlroy.

"That didn't happen," Mr Jackson said, adding: "He wasn't in the room".

He said he could think of no reason for Mr McIlroy to lie about being in the room.

------

My take is that is that the contradictory testimony of the defendants as well as the testimony of Florence created a sort of "fog of war" scenario. Ultimately the weight of having four different defendants with conflicting stories confused the hell out of the jury who basically didn't know what was what by the end of the trial and thus had to acquit on all counts.
That's quite a take Sid but they reached not guilty verdicts for all 4 defendants in four hours. Surely in the scenario you're desperately clinging to there would have been a long period of deliberation followed by a hung jury. The notion that you acquit multiple defendants because their lies are too conflicting and confusing despite having a strong belief in the complainant's evidence is insane. As David has said if they had any faith in the girl's evidence Mcillroy would have been convicted. There is zero to corroborate his story even from his fellow defendants and he came across very stongly as an arrogant bullshitter in the messages.

I'm honestly unsure if that last paragraph is a wind-up Sid as you surely can't believe it to be the case when the verdict was reached unanimously and so quickly.

You obviously paid no heed to the judge's directions. Not surprising.

It made a full acquittal very easy and the suggested thing to do if they doubted the verdacity of any the evidence.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:46:51 AM
Still clutching at straws it seems... case is closed.. no winners at all, very messy experience for all involved and some fcukwits looking to drag it on with the smear campaign!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on April 01, 2018, 09:47:13 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:05:53 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 08:47:46 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 01, 2018, 08:02:44 AM
For what it is worth David I don't think there is anything wrong with the process as I don't see how on what was known for definite they could have convicted.  I just don't think it is correct to say in the eyes of the law the girl is a liar.

Fair enough but again all we know is the jury didn't believe her about McIlroy.
So if they didn't believe her then that naked her a...?

This is not difficult. Not believing someone doesn't mean they lied.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:46:51 AM
Still clutching at straws it seems... case is closed.. no winners at all, very messy experience for all involved and some fcukwits looking to drag it on with the smear campaign!

Isn't society terrible, not letting the Top Shaggers go back to being heroes to children (and some adults here it seems) after being implicated in a gang rape.

:-\
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:56:41 AM
Quote from: gallsman on April 01, 2018, 09:47:13 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:05:53 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 08:47:46 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 01, 2018, 08:02:44 AM
For what it is worth David I don't think there is anything wrong with the process as I don't see how on what was known for definite they could have convicted.  I just don't think it is correct to say in the eyes of the law the girl is a liar.

Fair enough but again all we know is the jury didn't believe her about McIlroy.
So if they didn't believe her then that naked her a...?

This is not difficult. Not believing someone doesn't mean they lied.

Did she say that two people had vaginal sex with her?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:46:51 AM
Still clutching at straws it seems... case is closed.. no winners at all, very messy experience for all involved and some fcukwits looking to drag it on with the smear campaign!

Isn't society terrible, not letting the Top Shaggers go back to being heroes to children (and some adults here it seems) after being implicated in a gang rape.

:-\

Guilty of saying you're a top shaggers doesn't mean you gang raped a woman! In your head possibly, but I'd say if a man winked at a girl you'd have him down as a rapist
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 10:02:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:46:51 AM
Still clutching at straws it seems... case is closed.. no winners at all, very messy experience for all involved and some fcukwits looking to drag it on with the smear campaign!

Isn't society terrible, not letting the Top Shaggers go back to being heroes to children (and some adults here it seems) after being implicated in a gang rape.

:-\

Guilty of saying you're a top shaggers doesn't mean you gang raped a woman! In your head possibly, but I'd say if a man winked at a girl you'd have him down as a rapist

If I thought a man raped a woman I would. Wink wink.

It must be simple living in your world of black and white.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 10:06:54 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 10:02:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:46:51 AM
Still clutching at straws it seems... case is closed.. no winners at all, very messy experience for all involved and some fcukwits looking to drag it on with the smear campaign!

Isn't society terrible, not letting the Top Shaggers go back to being heroes to children (and some adults here it seems) after being implicated in a gang rape.

:-\

Guilty of saying you're a top shaggers doesn't mean you gang raped a woman! In your head possibly, but I'd say if a man winked at a girl you'd have him down as a rapist

If I thought a man raped a women I would. Wink wink.

It must be simple living in your world of black and white.

You should try it...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on April 01, 2018, 10:43:26 AM
Interesting that it emerged in the verdict proceedings that Olding had a charge of Vaginal rape dropped. I wonder why the state didnt keep this charge? Did this link into the compliant having inconsistencies in her initial statement?

So many unanswered questions...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2018, 10:47:54 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 10:02:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:46:51 AM
Still clutching at straws it seems... case is closed.. no winners at all, very messy experience for all involved and some fcukwits looking to drag it on with the smear campaign!

Isn't society terrible, not letting the Top Shaggers go back to being heroes to children (and some adults here it seems) after being implicated in a gang rape.

:-\

Guilty of saying you're a top shaggers doesn't mean you gang raped a woman! In your head possibly, but I'd say if a man winked at a girl you'd have him down as a rapist

If I thought a man raped a woman I would. Wink wink.

It must be simple living in your world of black and white.
It has been demonstrated time again that you inhabit the same black and white world as these feminazis. You have no grasp of nuance or shades of grey. I have met many people like this in life and they typically haven't had a rounded life experience. They stick herd-like to their own "type" either in the real world or online. Take off your tinfoil hat and get out an enjoy the world; stay out late, drink too much, try chatting up a few girls. You never know Syf, you might like it out there.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 10:51:22 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 10:43:26 AM
Interesting that it emerged in the verdict proceedings that Olding had a charge of Vaginal rape dropped. I wonder why the state didnt keep this charge? Did this link into the compliant having inconsistencies in her initial statement?

So many unanswered questions...

Given that the IP was going to say in the witness box that no vaginal intercourse had occurred between her and Olding it would have been impossible for the PPS to prove that offence. What is more interesting is that he was arraigned on it. For that to have happened the PPS must have charged him with it once they had collated all the evidence including the IP's statement to police but then decided after he had pleaded not guilty to offer no evidence. That's a very long time to have left that charge on the books. Hard to know why that happened
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2018, 10:47:54 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 10:02:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:46:51 AM
Still clutching at straws it seems... case is closed.. no winners at all, very messy experience for all involved and some fcukwits looking to drag it on with the smear campaign!

Isn't society terrible, not letting the Top Shaggers go back to being heroes to children (and some adults here it seems) after being implicated in a gang rape.

:-\

Guilty of saying you're a top shaggers doesn't mean you gang raped a woman! In your head possibly, but I'd say if a man winked at a girl you'd have him down as a rapist

If I thought a man raped a woman I would. Wink wink.

It must be simple living in your world of black and white.
It has been demonstrated time again that you inhabit the same black and white world as these feminazis. You have no grasp of nuance or shades of grey. I have met many people like this in life and they typically haven't had a rounded life experience. They stick herd-like to their own "type" either in the real world or online. Take off your tinfoil hat and get out an enjoy the world; stay out late, drink too much, try chatting up a few girls. You never know Syf, you might like it out there.

That you'd use the word feminazi unironically is a serious flag in and of itself. Forgive me if I take your critique with a grain of salt.

Simple question - do you think the incredibly low rate of reporting rapes and a remarkably low level of convictions stemming from those that are reported is the sign of a system that is functioning correctly?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2018, 11:09:19 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2018, 10:47:54 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 10:02:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:46:51 AM
Still clutching at straws it seems... case is closed.. no winners at all, very messy experience for all involved and some fcukwits looking to drag it on with the smear campaign!

Isn't society terrible, not letting the Top Shaggers go back to being heroes to children (and some adults here it seems) after being implicated in a gang rape.

:-\

Guilty of saying you're a top shaggers doesn't mean you gang raped a woman! In your head possibly, but I'd say if a man winked at a girl you'd have him down as a rapist

If I thought a man raped a woman I would. Wink wink.

It must be simple living in your world of black and white.
It has been demonstrated time again that you inhabit the same black and white world as these feminazis. You have no grasp of nuance or shades of grey. I have met many people like this in life and they typically haven't had a rounded life experience. They stick herd-like to their own "type" either in the real world or online. Take off your tinfoil hat and get out an enjoy the world; stay out late, drink too much, try chatting up a few girls. You never know Syf, you might like it out there.

That you'd use the word feminazi unironically is a serious flag in and of itself. Forgive me if I take your critique with a grain of salt.

Simple question - do you think the incredibly low rate of reporting rapes and a remarkably low level of convictions stemming from those that are reported is the sign of a system that is functioning correctly?
I didn't use it unironically, I used it very pointedly knowing it would be the focus of your response. ENTIRELY predictable. You get shown up in pretty much every topic you engage in, so maybe you should leave the big topics to the grown-ups.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:11:13 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 10:51:22 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 10:43:26 AM
Interesting that it emerged in the verdict proceedings that Olding had a charge of Vaginal rape dropped. I wonder why the state didnt keep this charge? Did this link into the compliant having inconsistencies in her initial statement?

So many unanswered questions...

Given that the IP was going to say in the witness box that no vaginal intercourse had occurred between her and Olding it would have been impossible for the PPS to prove that offence. What is more interesting is that he was arraigned on it. For that to have happened the PPS must have charged him with it once they had collated all the evidence including the IP's statement to police but then decided after he had pleaded not guilty to offer no evidence. That's a very long time to have left that charge on the books. Hard to know why that happened

Would you care to put forward a theory?

It seems to me (being just a punter) that the compliant alleged this and then backed off it..possible or issues with that theory?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 11:11:58 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2018, 11:09:19 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2018, 10:47:54 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 10:02:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:46:51 AM
Still clutching at straws it seems... case is closed.. no winners at all, very messy experience for all involved and some fcukwits looking to drag it on with the smear campaign!

Isn't society terrible, not letting the Top Shaggers go back to being heroes to children (and some adults here it seems) after being implicated in a gang rape.

:-\

Guilty of saying you're a top shaggers doesn't mean you gang raped a woman! In your head possibly, but I'd say if a man winked at a girl you'd have him down as a rapist

If I thought a man raped a woman I would. Wink wink.

It must be simple living in your world of black and white.
It has been demonstrated time again that you inhabit the same black and white world as these feminazis. You have no grasp of nuance or shades of grey. I have met many people like this in life and they typically haven't had a rounded life experience. They stick herd-like to their own "type" either in the real world or online. Take off your tinfoil hat and get out an enjoy the world; stay out late, drink too much, try chatting up a few girls. You never know Syf, you might like it out there.

That you'd use the word feminazi unironically is a serious flag in and of itself. Forgive me if I take your critique with a grain of salt.

Simple question - do you think the incredibly low rate of reporting rapes and a remarkably low level of convictions stemming from those that are reported is the sign of a system that is functioning correctly?
I didn't use it unironically, I used it very pointedly knowing it would be the focus of your response. ENTIRELY predictable. You get shown up in pretty much every topic you engage in, so maybe you should leave the big topics to the grown-ups.

Did you have that response prepared so, because it doesn't bear much relationship to what was actually said?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2018, 11:14:22 AM
For the second part of your response which you have just added, I don't think anyone on this thread would, or has, argued that the system is perfect but the defendants were tried and judged within the remit of the current system. As other posters have stated, the #ibelieveher and #suemepaddy mob have focused on the defendants rather than the system. They would be better focusing their attentions on the latter if they don't want a similar outcome in future.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 11:16:59 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:11:13 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 10:51:22 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 10:43:26 AM
Interesting that it emerged in the verdict proceedings that Olding had a charge of Vaginal rape dropped. I wonder why the state didnt keep this charge? Did this link into the compliant having inconsistencies in her initial statement?

So many unanswered questions...

Given that the IP was going to say in the witness box that no vaginal intercourse had occurred between her and Olding it would have been impossible for the PPS to prove that offence. What is more interesting is that he was arraigned on it. For that to have happened the PPS must have charged him with it once they had collated all the evidence including the IP's statement to police but then decided after he had pleaded not guilty to offer no evidence. That's a very long time to have left that charge on the books. Hard to know why that happened

Would you care to put forward a theory?

It seems to me (being just a punter) that the compliant alleged this and then backed off it..possible or issues with that theory?

No as I say it's hard to know why that happened I just find it unusual. It's possible that the complainant initially alleged vaginal rape against Olding and the PPS didn't speak to her again until after arraignment. Similarly it's possible they just left the charge in there because of what the complainant told the doctor or because Olding was questioned about the offence. Hard to know but it's unusual enough for it to have remained on the books for as long as it did.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 11:17:50 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2018, 11:14:22 AM
For the second part of your response which you have just added, I don't think anyone on this thread would, or has, argued that the system is perfect but the defendants were tried and judged within the remit of the current system. As other posters have stated, the #ibelieveher and #suemepaddy mob have focused on the defendants rather than the system. They would be better focusing their attentions on the latter if they don't want a similar outcome in future.

If you accept the premise, why would the problems associated with rape cases not permeate this case too? Might explain the reason that the response to the verdict was roundly negative easier than a feminazi conspiracy would..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 01, 2018, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 01, 2018, 08:15:10 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 01, 2018, 01:18:36 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:58:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 11:45:49 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:06:48 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 10:47:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.

The jury may well have had strong belief in the complainant on this charge.

However McIlroy's version was that he entered the room and received oral sex from the complainant, and was talking to Jackson while this was occurring.

Jackson's version was that McIlroy didn't enter the room at all.

Thus, McIlroy's and Jackson's accounts may have placed a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds on this charge.

Strong belief = not guilty.

I think Jackson's version was actually that he didn't see McIlory enter the room or have oral sex with her but he had no reason to doubt McIlory but assuming you are correct you think two completely contradictory alternative versions to the complainants was enough to make the jury not believe the complainant?  I find that highly doubtful particularly if as we keep hearing the defendants were such bad witnesses.

All we know for sure is the Jury did not believe the complainant about what happened with McIlroy.  Anything else is speculation.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/paddy-jackson-says-he-would-have-gone-to-police-if-told-of-rape-allegation-1.3418181

Mr McIlroy's counsel asked Mr Jackson about his evidence that he never saw Mr McIlroy in the room. Mr McIlroy told police he was in the room and received oral sex from the woman while Mr Jackson was there.

Mr Jackson agreed with counsel he was drunk and very tired by the end of the night. He said it was possible he could have been drifting in and out of consciousness when the complainant was leaving his bedroom.

Counsel put it to Mr Jackson that his client says Mr Jackson was doing something with the woman while she performed oral sex on Mr McIlroy.

"That didn't happen," Mr Jackson said, adding: "He wasn't in the room".

He said he could think of no reason for Mr McIlroy to lie about being in the room.

------

My take is that is that the contradictory testimony of the defendants as well as the testimony of Florence created a sort of "fog of war" scenario. Ultimately the weight of having four different defendants with conflicting stories confused the hell out of the jury who basically didn't know what was what by the end of the trial and thus had to acquit on all counts.
That's quite a take Sid but they reached not guilty verdicts for all 4 defendants in four hours. Surely in the scenario you're desperately clinging to there would have been a long period of deliberation followed by a hung jury. The notion that you acquit multiple defendants because their lies are too conflicting and confusing despite having a strong belief in the complainant's evidence is insane. As David has said if they had any faith in the girl's evidence Mcillroy would have been convicted. There is zero to corroborate his story even from his fellow defendants and he came across very stongly as an arrogant bullshitter in the messages.

I'm honestly unsure if that last paragraph is a wind-up Sid as you surely can't believe it to be the case when the verdict was reached unanimously and so quickly.

I have read the comment by the foreperson of the jury who said they had been effectively deliberating for well over a week.

In terms of McIlroy, there were four relevant accounts - that of the complainant, that of McIlroy, that of Jackson and that of Harrison.

The complainant and McIlroy both said McIlroy was naked in the room though they differ on what happened while he was naked.

Jackson said about McIlroy being in the room "didn't happen" as far as he was concerned while Harrison said he didn't see McIlroy naked.

I can see how the jury thought there was reasonable doubt there.

It clearly pays when you have three defendants telling different stories.

Asymmetric warfare, courtroom style.


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:23:52 AM
The foreperson said they had been deliberating for a week? Sure that's not allowed.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 01, 2018, 11:27:31 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2018, 11:09:19 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2018, 10:47:54 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 10:02:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 01, 2018, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 09:46:51 AM
Still clutching at straws it seems... case is closed.. no winners at all, very messy experience for all involved and some fcukwits looking to drag it on with the smear campaign!

Isn't society terrible, not letting the Top Shaggers go back to being heroes to children (and some adults here it seems) after being implicated in a gang rape.

:-\

Guilty of saying you're a top shaggers doesn't mean you gang raped a woman! In your head possibly, but I'd say if a man winked at a girl you'd have him down as a rapist

If I thought a man raped a woman I would. Wink wink.

It must be simple living in your world of black and white.
It has been demonstrated time again that you inhabit the same black and white world as these feminazis. You have no grasp of nuance or shades of grey. I have met many people like this in life and they typically haven't had a rounded life experience. They stick herd-like to their own "type" either in the real world or online. Take off your tinfoil hat and get out an enjoy the world; stay out late, drink too much, try chatting up a few girls. You never know Syf, you might like it out there.

That you'd use the word feminazi unironically is a serious flag in and of itself. Forgive me if I take your critique with a grain of salt.

Simple question - do you think the incredibly low rate of reporting rapes and a remarkably low level of convictions stemming from those that are reported is the sign of a system that is functioning correctly?
I didn't use it unironically, I used it very pointedly knowing it would be the focus of your response. ENTIRELY predictable. You get shown up in pretty much every topic you engage in, so maybe you should leave the big topics to the grown-ups.

"Feminazis", "SJWs", "PC brigade", "snowflakes" etc are alt-right terms. Look up what the alt-right is.

People are more than entitled to draw inferences about the inherent biases of people who use these terms.

They add nothing to any debate and are merely an attempt to debase it and divert into rabbit holes through wumming.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:30:38 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 11:16:59 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:11:13 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 10:51:22 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 10:43:26 AM
Interesting that it emerged in the verdict proceedings that Olding had a charge of Vaginal rape dropped. I wonder why the state didnt keep this charge? Did this link into the compliant having inconsistencies in her initial statement?

So many unanswered questions...

Given that the IP was going to say in the witness box that no vaginal intercourse had occurred between her and Olding it would have been impossible for the PPS to prove that offence. What is more interesting is that he was arraigned on it. For that to have happened the PPS must have charged him with it once they had collated all the evidence including the IP's statement to police but then decided after he had pleaded not guilty to offer no evidence. That's a very long time to have left that charge on the books. Hard to know why that happened

Would you care to put forward a theory?

It seems to me (being just a punter) that the compliant alleged this and then backed off it..possible or issues with that theory?

No as I say it's hard to know why that happened I just find it unusual. It's possible that the complainant initially alleged vaginal rape against Olding and the PPS didn't speak to her again until after arraignment. Similarly it's possible they just left the charge in there because of what the complainant told the doctor or because Olding was questioned about the offence. Hard to know but it's unusual enough for it to have remained on the books for as long as it did.

That sounds shabby if they just left a charge in there that was eliminated extremely early in the investigation.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 11:32:20 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:23:52 AM
The foreperson said they had been deliberating for a week? Sure that's not allowed.

I'd say they would have talked about the case in general throughout the 8.5 weeks, deliberating after case finished was simple then,  i'd imagine
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 01, 2018, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:23:52 AM
The foreperson said they had been deliberating for a week? Sure that's not allowed.
The foreperson flagrantly disobeyed the specific orders of the judge to not discuss the case on the internet within hours of the verdict. That's why they are now under investigation.

It strongly appears that the foreperson is an idiot.

I would say it's short odds that they were doing their own "research" during the trial, which again, would have been against the specific orders of the judge.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 11:34:52 AM
To give my two cents worth on this idea that the system is to blame for the under reporting of sexual crime I disagree. The system already allows significant additional safeguards for victims of sexual offences. For example. Lifetime annonimity and reporting restrictions, automatic use of special measures, admissibility of first complaint evidence. More stringent rules on the admission of bad character. A complete ban on cross examination of the complainant by the accused personally to name but a few. It's difficult for me to see what more could be done and it's patently wrong and dangerous to suggest that the system does nothing to cater for victims.

I know a lot has been made about the complainants underwear being shown in court but that would only have been possible had the judge been content that it was necessary and proportionate in order to explain a relevant piece of evidence. Not having been in the trial I don't know what relevance it had but I trust the judge and the lawyers that this had some relevance.

Similarly much has been made of how the complainant has been pilloried by the media. Again to me this isn't a flaw with the system this is a flaw with media reporting.

Finally the suggestion has been made that the defendants should receive annoniminty unless convicted. A couple of issues arise here. One for justice to be done the starting principle is it not only has to be done but it also has to be seen to be done. Two I remember when I studied criminology in 04/05 we discussed this at great length and there was significant data to suggest that naming the accused before conviction acted as a significant deterrent to other would be rapists. This coupled with the fact that the public should be able to distinguish between someone acquitted and someone convicted of a sexual offence played a significant role in the decision to allow defendants to continue to be named. So whilst I can understand consternation of the system I think it has been unfairly demeaned in the aftermath of the trial. 

Meant to add in cases where reporting restrictions are not automatic it is not unusual for the press to oppose any reporting restriction imposed on the basis that it is not in the public interest.

All of these things must be balanced against each other in a fair criminal justice system.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 11:35:08 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 01, 2018, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:23:52 AM
The foreperson said they had been deliberating for a week? Sure that's not allowed.
The foreperson flagrantly disobeyed the specific orders of the judge to not discuss the case on the internet within hours of the verdict. That's why they are now under investigation.

It strongly appears that the foreperson is an idiot.

I would say it's short odds that they were doing their own "research" during the trial, which again, would have been against the specific orders of the judge.

The foreperson spoke about what was put on his fb page. Have you a link to the text?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 01, 2018, 11:46:36 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 11:35:08 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 01, 2018, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:23:52 AM
The foreperson said they had been deliberating for a week? Sure that's not allowed.
The foreperson flagrantly disobeyed the specific orders of the judge to not discuss the case on the internet within hours of the verdict. That's why they are now under investigation.

It strongly appears that the foreperson is an idiot.

I would say it's short odds that they were doing their own "research" during the trial, which again, would have been against the specific orders of the judge.

The foreperson spoke about what was put on his fb page. Have you a link to the text?

The foreperson is a she, not a he.

I don't have a link to the text because i) I didn't save the screenshots I read and ii) that would be going against the judge's specific instructions, anyway.

They were posted on Broadsheet.ie the evening of the verdict before being removed and screenshots were put up on boards.ie, again before being removed.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on April 01, 2018, 11:54:46 AM
Top stuff David. The funny thing is there is an awful lot of ire coming from southern based 'protesters ' who are missing the whole point that there's a difference between the two jurisdictions in terms of the whole anonymity issue. While it may seem preferable that there is anonymity in some people's minds I completely agree with you that justice must be seen to be done. Imagine this scenario. The defendants in this case were anonymous. The result went as it did and they were found not guilty. I have no doubt that their names would have been leaked and then you'd have an even bigger furore than there is now in terms of people accusing the system of being stacked in favour of the 'privileged'. Look at how 'anonymous ' the complainant is?  Her name and connections have been well known from early on in the trial and repeated to me regularly. In the event of the defendants being anonymous it would be all over Twitter and Facebook. What this could lead to is situations where the defendants quite rightly make the case that there is an abuse of process and the amount of appeals or mistrials would increase and the conviction rate would probably decrease.

As far as the vaginal rape charge against Olding I reckon that he was charged and the PPS didn't speak to her until after the PE and therefore left it on the books as to remove it would show a weakness. It is reflective i believe of a poorly processed case on behalf of the police and the PPS and also one that they were not confident in from the very outset. There literally was no corroboration to the complainants allegation of sexual contact apart from the Dara Florence fleeting look where she actually states that she saw a threesome and that it actually seemed consensual. That was flawed eveidnce in itself but couple with the rest of the inconsistencies in the sequence of events then it obvious why the jury found the way they did.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on April 01, 2018, 12:01:30 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 01, 2018, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 01, 2018, 08:15:10 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 01, 2018, 01:18:36 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:58:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 31, 2018, 11:45:49 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 31, 2018, 11:06:48 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 31, 2018, 10:47:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2018, 07:44:48 PM
Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

In the eyes of the law she lied you said.

That isn't true.

What i believe and you believe is irrelevant - you saying in the eyes of the law she lied is incorrect.

(P.s. I didn't know i had to answer with a yes or a no. I am unconvinced anyone in that bedroom accurately remembers what happened. )

Can I just ask what do you mean its not true?  If the jury had have believed the complainant McIlroy would have been convicted, the fact he wasn't means they didn't believe her.  'So in the eyes of the law' whatever that means it is as true to say she was lying as it is to say she wasn't.

The jury may well have had strong belief in the complainant on this charge.

However McIlroy's version was that he entered the room and received oral sex from the complainant, and was talking to Jackson while this was occurring.

Jackson's version was that McIlroy didn't enter the room at all.

Thus, McIlroy's and Jackson's accounts may have placed a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds on this charge.

Strong belief = not guilty.

I think Jackson's version was actually that he didn't see McIlory enter the room or have oral sex with her but he had no reason to doubt McIlory but assuming you are correct you think two completely contradictory alternative versions to the complainants was enough to make the jury not believe the complainant?  I find that highly doubtful particularly if as we keep hearing the defendants were such bad witnesses.

All we know for sure is the Jury did not believe the complainant about what happened with McIlroy.  Anything else is speculation.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/paddy-jackson-says-he-would-have-gone-to-police-if-told-of-rape-allegation-1.3418181

Mr McIlroy's counsel asked Mr Jackson about his evidence that he never saw Mr McIlroy in the room. Mr McIlroy told police he was in the room and received oral sex from the woman while Mr Jackson was there.

Mr Jackson agreed with counsel he was drunk and very tired by the end of the night. He said it was possible he could have been drifting in and out of consciousness when the complainant was leaving his bedroom.

Counsel put it to Mr Jackson that his client says Mr Jackson was doing something with the woman while she performed oral sex on Mr McIlroy.

"That didn't happen," Mr Jackson said, adding: "He wasn't in the room".

He said he could think of no reason for Mr McIlroy to lie about being in the room.

------

My take is that is that the contradictory testimony of the defendants as well as the testimony of Florence created a sort of "fog of war" scenario. Ultimately the weight of having four different defendants with conflicting stories confused the hell out of the jury who basically didn't know what was what by the end of the trial and thus had to acquit on all counts.
That's quite a take Sid but they reached not guilty verdicts for all 4 defendants in four hours. Surely in the scenario you're desperately clinging to there would have been a long period of deliberation followed by a hung jury. The notion that you acquit multiple defendants because their lies are too conflicting and confusing despite having a strong belief in the complainant's evidence is insane. As David has said if they had any faith in the girl's evidence Mcillroy would have been convicted. There is zero to corroborate his story even from his fellow defendants and he came across very stongly as an arrogant bullshitter in the messages.

I'm honestly unsure if that last paragraph is a wind-up Sid as you surely can't believe it to be the case when the verdict was reached unanimously and so quickly.

I have read the comment by the foreperson of the jury who said they had been effectively deliberating for well over a week.

In terms of McIlroy, there were four relevant accounts - that of the complainant, that of McIlroy, that of Jackson and that of Harrison.

The complainant and McIlroy both said McIlroy was naked in the room though they differ on what happened while he was naked.

Jackson said about McIlroy being in the room "didn't happen" as far as he was concerned while Harrison said he didn't see McIlroy naked.

I can see how the jury thought there was reasonable doubt there.

It clearly pays when you have three defendants telling different stories.

Asymmetric warfare, courtroom style.
Interesting Sid, I haven't seen the juror's comments. I still think the not guilty verdicts, after the conflicting accounts of the defendants, point to them not believing the girl but if you've read her comments you might be aware of a few more things that I'm not re how the verdict was reached.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on April 01, 2018, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 11:32:20 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:23:52 AM
The foreperson said they had been deliberating for a week? Sure that's not allowed.

I'd say they would have talked about the case in general throughout the 8.5 weeks, deliberating after case finished was simple then,  i'd imagine

They would have been talking about the case on every break, so the deliberating would have started long before the judge gave her directions
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on April 01, 2018, 12:07:56 PM
The juror said on facebook that they were deliberating before all evidence was heard? Oh my. How stupid could you be? It's bad enough that they were doing that which goes against the judges distinct instructions.  From what I remember of being on a jury you are reminded each and every day not to deliberate until all evidence is heard. But then to say you deliberated on social media...holy crap.

Could that be grounds for a mistrial?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on April 01, 2018, 12:08:41 PM
Quote from: Minder on April 01, 2018, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 11:32:20 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:23:52 AM
The foreperson said they had been deliberating for a week? Sure that's not allowed.

I'd say they would have talked about the case in general throughout the 8.5 weeks, deliberating after case finished was simple then,  i'd imagine

They would have been talking about the case on every break, so the deliberating would have started long before the judge gave her directions

That's not allowed. In ireland anyway.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on April 01, 2018, 12:10:04 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 01, 2018, 11:54:46 AM
Top stuff David. The funny thing is there is an awful lot of ire coming from southern based 'protesters ' who are missing the whole point that there's a difference between the two jurisdictions in terms of the whole anonymity issue. While it may seem preferable that there is anonymity in some people's minds I completely agree with you that justice must be seen to be done. Imagine this scenario. The defendants in this case were anonymous. The result went as it did and they were found not guilty. I have no doubt that their names would have been leaked and then you'd have an even bigger furore than there is now in terms of people accusing the system of being stacked in favour of the 'privileged'. Look at how 'anonymous ' the complainant is?  Her name and connections have been well known from early on in the trial and repeated to me regularly. In the event of the defendants being anonymous it would be all over Twitter and Facebook. What this could lead to is situations where the defendants quite rightly make the case that there is an abuse of process and the amount of appeals or mistrials would increase and the conviction rate would probably decrease.

As far as the vaginal rape charge against Olding I reckon that he was charged and the PPS didn't speak to her until after the PE and therefore left it on the books as to remove it would show a weakness. It is reflective i believe of a poorly processed case on behalf of the police and the PPS and also one that they were not confident in from the very outset. There literally was no corroboration to the complainants allegation of sexual contact apart from the Dara Florence fleeting look where she actually states that she saw a threesome and that it actually seemed consensual. That was flawed eveidnce in itself but couple with the rest of the inconsistencies in the sequence of events then it obvious why the jury found the way they did.
In keeping with the grand tradition of Irish Governments responding to whatever is on the front page of the papers, Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan is launching a review into how sensitive cases are handled here in response to the protests. Politics has to be seen to be done too.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on April 01, 2018, 12:22:45 PM
Interesting piece about a Swedish theatre director who recently committed suicide over false accusations of sex abuse and the resultant backlash against the MeToo movement in that country......
www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/high-profile-death-prompts-backlash-against-metoo-in-sweden-1.3444849%3fmode=amp

"The news of his suicide has rocked his homeland, and raised questions about the reach – and aims – of the #metoo movement in Sweden. This week a city investigation which commenced after the allegations emerged found no evidence of sexual misconduct by Fredriksson.

On the contrary, the report presented in part on Tuesday said the claims against him – particularly the abortion allegation – were misleading."
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Minder on April 01, 2018, 12:50:44 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 12:08:41 PM
Quote from: Minder on April 01, 2018, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 11:32:20 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:23:52 AM
The foreperson said they had been deliberating for a week? Sure that's not allowed.

I'd say they would have talked about the case in general throughout the 8.5 weeks, deliberating after case finished was simple then,  i'd imagine

They would have been talking about the case on every break, so the deliberating would have started long before the judge gave her directions

That's not allowed. In ireland anyway.

How would anyone know ? I sat on a jury before and that's what happened
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2018, 01:31:11 PM
Did you ever hear such shite. People have a brain which they use to process information. This has been the case for hundreds of thousands of years. Therefore let's not pretend that people listening to 9 weeks of a trial do not make any judgements on the information, the appearance and character of the protagonists or make up their mind and change their mind throughout that period.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on April 01, 2018, 01:34:53 PM
Whenever the jury are sitting in the jury whenever there are legal discussions do you honestly think they were discussing the weather? Christ sake lads it actually would be negligent in my opinion if they didn't discuss things in such a long and complicated trial. If they went to the end of the 8-9 weeks and hadnt discussed it the argument could very easily be made that they have forgotten some stuff.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2018, 01:46:44 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 01, 2018, 01:34:53 PM
Whenever the jury are sitting in the jury whenever there are legal discussions donyou honestlynthibknyheyre discussing the weather? Christ sake lads it actually would be negligent in my opinion if they didn't discuss things in such a long and complicated trial. I'd they went to the end of the 8-9 weeks and hadnt discusses it the argument could very easily be made that they have forgotten some stuff.
Not allowed down south.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on April 01, 2018, 01:49:43 PM
No going to bother with arguing over what juries should or shouldn't do in people's opinions. They should follow the judge's instructions. If they don't and the forewoman said that online then we will see where it ends up.

Wrote this about the trial at https://t.co/WUg8Y2DT91

This piece is meant to be a short look at the evidence presented and how it didn't lead to a conviction. It will in particular look at the parts of the trial that seem to have been missed in the media and social media (twitter) analysis. It will also ask questions around what this case meant for rape trials in general and how they are covered in the media.

So to start with the evidence for the prosecution; undue attention was put on the whatsapp conversations between the accused and their friends on whatsapp. The main accused Paddy Jackson barely said anything on these conversations but seems to have been lumped in with the comments made by David Mcillroy (accused of exposure) whose comments on whatsapp were surely the most objectionable. Ultimately the texts on whatapp were crude but it's hard to give them much punching power in terms of evidence of a coverup or non-consensual sex.

So my focus is on "devil in the detail" stuff;

The compliant gave a statement indicating the incident started when Jackson pulled down her jeans. When it finished the compliant said she put her underwear in her pocket. That means the underwear and trousers came all the way off her legs. I would like to know therefore during the incident was she wearing shoes? If she was how were the shoes removed (they had to be for her to be able to put her underwear in her pocket). Did she remove them or did Jackson? If the compliant removed them it is a signal, a big signal, towards consent and puts her story that she froze under significant stress.
Another thing that was left unanswered for me during the trial is how Jackson always alleged he never had vaginal sex with the woman. If he was lying about this did he know already the DNA test on the woman had shown no sperm sample from Jackson? If he didn't know none of his sperm was found and was lying he took a huge risk as his story would be immediately sunk if he had had sex with the girl and his sperm was found but lied about it. Another unanswered question from the evidence presented and ultimately something that strengthens the testimony of Jackson as his story ultimately checked out.

Another issue that didn't seem to come out until the verdicts were read out was that the jury had to be directed to find Stuart Olding not guilty of vaginal rape. This was just a box ticking exercise as the state never pursued this charge as prosecutable. This is .... strange. Why did the state not pursue this charge or why did they change it at all? I'm almost sure from reading up on the case that it was established very early that the compliant only alleged oral rape by Olding. Was it just extremely sloppy work from the judiciary that this charge actually came before the court. Is this what Jackson's lawyer meant when he alluded to the compliant's inconsistencies. Again it's a weird aspect of the case that will probably go unanswered.

Moving on from the trial to looking at the protests in Dublin and Belfast it is hard to say if the protests are directed at the verdict, the way the trial was ran or a general perception of toxic masculinity that needs to be addressed in society. The protests are set to continue and it will be interesting to say how they develop for at the moment they seem to lack focus beyond slogans where a meaningful change to the justice system or legislation is to be demanded.

Also interesting has been the media attention on the case which has been incessant. However the hard questions don't seem to get asked as it would be labeled as victim blaming. However if the defence solicitor is prepared to ask why the compliant didn't "scream the house down" then you have to accept that he wouldn't use this tactic if he didn't feel it would reverberate with the jury. Similarly as a man who has never experienced a sexual assault and the affect it has on your state of mind I don't fully follow why you would freeze as someone was touching in a non-violent way with which you were not comfortable. Would you not say something or do something? I think this question has to be confronted by those that know as those that don't like me don't completely understand it and it was been used by the defence as a legal argument so it simply has to be addressed.

The conclusion to this is my own view on the case as a whole. Early on when I heard the opening statements I believed the defendants were in serious trouble but about a month into the trial it became fairly clear to me that Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt was not a realistic outcome. When Dara Florence took to the stand to say she had witnessed "a threesome" which she was invited to join, it was already a reasonable doubt. Before she had taken the stand, it had emerged that the two medical experts conflicted on whether the blood was menstrual or from the wound on the vaginal wall. Finally to bring a rape charge against Jackson where there was no physical evidence of vaginal intercourse was surely a major red flag to the jury of a reasonable doubt. Given these three reasonable doubts to the prosecution it does seem worthy to ask if this case should have been proceeded with. The jury's short deliberation time was also noteworthy.

Finally I still am not convinced about how satisfactory this case's outcomes are. Why would a woman alledge rape if she wasn't? The prosecution told a story that she was worried about pictures or video being taken but there was no evidence to support this as something that even entered her head. Had she a boyfriend and needed to "cry rape" to avoid him discovering infidelity? Again no evidence of this was presented in court. Why did McIlroy alledge he received oral sex from the compliant when she said this didn't happen. Was it a cover-story mixup? On and on the questions come and who knows if there will ever be answers.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on April 01, 2018, 01:51:27 PM
Quote from: Minder on April 01, 2018, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2018, 11:32:20 AM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 11:23:52 AM
The foreperson said they had been deliberating for a week? Sure that's not allowed.

I'd say they would have talked about the case in general throughout the 8.5 weeks, deliberating after case finished was simple then,  i'd imagine

They would have been talking about the case on every break, so the deliberating would have started long before the judge gave her directions
It would be incorrect to deliberate as to guilty or not guilty until all the evidence is heard but certainly I could see jurors discussing the standard of each witness
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on April 01, 2018, 02:12:01 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2018, 01:46:44 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 01, 2018, 01:34:53 PM
Whenever the jury are sitting in the jury whenever there are legal discussions donyou honestlynthibknyheyre discussing the weather? Christ sake lads it actually would be negligent in my opinion if they didn't discuss things in such a long and complicated trial. I'd they went to the end of the 8-9 weeks and hadnt discusses it the argument could very easily be made that they have forgotten some stuff.
Not allowed down south.

It's not allowed but common sense is such that they will discuss it. Even just clarifying things that happened. Maybe not deliberating on the guilt but certainly forming opinions.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 02:38:52 PM
Capera

What exactly was the judiciary supposed to do about the vaginal charge for Olding? How was it sloppy work?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 02:38:52 PM
Capera

What exactly was the judiciary supposed to do about the vaginal charge for Olding? How was it sloppy work?

Drop the charge I would have thought. It really depends how late they knew they wouldn't be presenting a case to prosecute it no?

Since writing the blog I think what happened is the girl wasn't sure if Olding had vaginal sex with her. She said she was face down so couldn't be sure.

Guess it depends on the timeline of finding that out.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 02:38:52 PM
Capera

What exactly was the judiciary supposed to do about the vaginal charge for Olding? How was it sloppy work?

Drop the charge I would have thought. It really depends how late they knew they wouldn't be presenting a case to prosecute it no?

Since writing the blog I think what happened is the girl wasn't sure if Olding had vaginal sex with her. She said she was face down so couldn't be sure.

Guess it depends on the timeline of finding that out.

But that's nothing to do with the judiciary. The decision of what charges to bring is the sole preserve of the PPS. Once Olding entered a not guilty plea to the charge at arraignment (and I imagine there must have been some evidence to ground that charge at that stage) the only way it could have played out is exactly how it did.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 02:38:52 PM
Capera

What exactly was the judiciary supposed to do about the vaginal charge for Olding? How was it sloppy work?

Drop the charge I would have thought. It really depends how late they knew they wouldn't be presenting a case to prosecute it no?

Since writing the blog I think what happened is the girl wasn't sure if Olding had vaginal sex with her. She said she was face down so couldn't be sure.

Guess it depends on the timeline of finding that out.

But that's nothing to do with the judiciary. The decision of what charges to bring is the sole preserve of the PPS. Once Olding entered a not guilty plea to the charge at arraignment (and I imagine there must have been some evidence to ground that charge at that stage) the only way it could have played out is exactly how it did.

Of course. I'm wrong.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on April 01, 2018, 03:42:04 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 02:38:52 PM
Capera

What exactly was the judiciary supposed to do about the vaginal charge for Olding? How was it sloppy work?

Drop the charge I would have thought. It really depends how late they knew they wouldn't be presenting a case to prosecute it no?

Since writing the blog I think what happened is the girl wasn't sure if Olding had vaginal sex with her. She said she was face down so couldn't be sure.

Guess it depends on the timeline of finding that out.

But that's nothing to do with the judiciary. The decision of what charges to bring is the sole preserve of the PPS. Once Olding entered a not guilty plea to the charge at arraignment (and I imagine there must have been some evidence to ground that charge at that stage) the only way it could have played out is exactly how it did.

Of course. I'm wrong.

Please can you teach Suffering some humility like that!!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:52:48 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 01, 2018, 03:42:04 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 02:38:52 PM
Capera

What exactly was the judiciary supposed to do about the vaginal charge for Olding? How was it sloppy work?

Drop the charge I would have thought. It really depends how late they knew they wouldn't be presenting a case to prosecute it no?

Since writing the blog I think what happened is the girl wasn't sure if Olding had vaginal sex with her. She said she was face down so couldn't be sure.

Guess it depends on the timeline of finding that out.

But that's nothing to do with the judiciary. The decision of what charges to bring is the sole preserve of the PPS. Once Olding entered a not guilty plea to the charge at arraignment (and I imagine there must have been some evidence to ground that charge at that stage) the only way it could have played out is exactly how it did.

Of course. I'm wrong.

Please can you teach Suffering some humility like that!!!

Think it affects almost all humans in arguments. People too keen to stand by arguments that are disproven instead of being happy to be educated and enlightened.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on April 01, 2018, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:32:32 PM
Major change in policy for UK's biggest police force:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/it-isnt-all-about-victims-met-police-to-abandon-practice-of-believing-all-sex-assault-complaints-a3803791.html (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/it-isnt-all-about-victims-met-police-to-abandon-practice-of-believing-all-sex-assault-complaints-a3803791.html)

Also Chief prosecutor in England & Wales, Alison Saunders, to stand down after 'disastrous' tenure at CPS when sex crimes and their prosecution have come under the microscope.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/alison-saunders-public-prosecutions-dpp-leave-stand-down-cps-controversy-rape-trials-a8284486.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/alison-saunders-public-prosecutions-dpp-leave-stand-down-cps-controversy-rape-trials-a8284486.html)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 01, 2018, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? You're basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Farrandeelin on April 02, 2018, 02:46:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 01, 2018, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? You're basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

And you're basically a Tony F spouting shite on every thread. At least Fearon stuck to the bishops.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html)

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used! 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html)

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html)

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html)

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitey on April 02, 2018, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 01, 2018, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? You're basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

FFS will uou lighten up.......Id bet 90% of fellas were thinking exactly the same thing

You can wrap yourself in sheeps wool if you were triggered by my comment
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: ONeill on April 02, 2018, 04:09:11 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 02:38:52 PM
Capera

What exactly was the judiciary supposed to do about the vaginal charge for Olding? How was it sloppy work?

Drop the charge I would have thought. It really depends how late they knew they wouldn't be presenting a case to prosecute it no?

Since writing the blog I think what happened is the girl wasn't sure if Olding had vaginal sex with her. She said she was face down so couldn't be sure.

Guess it depends on the timeline of finding that out.

But that's nothing to do with the judiciary. The decision of what charges to bring is the sole preserve of the PPS. Once Olding entered a not guilty plea to the charge at arraignment (and I imagine there must have been some evidence to ground that charge at that stage) the only way it could have played out is exactly how it did.

Of course. I'm wrong.

WTF? You know how the gaaboard works?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 02, 2018, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: ONeill on April 02, 2018, 04:09:11 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 02:38:52 PM
Capera

What exactly was the judiciary supposed to do about the vaginal charge for Olding? How was it sloppy work?

Drop the charge I would have thought. It really depends how late they knew they wouldn't be presenting a case to prosecute it no?

Since writing the blog I think what happened is the girl wasn't sure if Olding had vaginal sex with her. She said she was face down so couldn't be sure.

Guess it depends on the timeline of finding that out.

But that's nothing to do with the judiciary. The decision of what charges to bring is the sole preserve of the PPS. Once Olding entered a not guilty plea to the charge at arraignment (and I imagine there must have been some evidence to ground that charge at that stage) the only way it could have played out is exactly how it did.

Of course. I'm wrong.

WTF? You know how the gaaboard works?
;D I think it's a 1 day ban for admitting you are wrong. Nobody has even been banned.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on April 02, 2018, 04:34:38 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 02, 2018, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: ONeill on April 02, 2018, 04:09:11 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 02:38:52 PM
Capera

What exactly was the judiciary supposed to do about the vaginal charge for Olding? How was it sloppy work?

Drop the charge I would have thought. It really depends how late they knew they wouldn't be presenting a case to prosecute it no?

Since writing the blog I think what happened is the girl wasn't sure if Olding had vaginal sex with her. She said she was face down so couldn't be sure.

Guess it depends on the timeline of finding that out.

But that's nothing to do with the judiciary. The decision of what charges to bring is the sole preserve of the PPS. Once Olding entered a not guilty plea to the charge at arraignment (and I imagine there must have been some evidence to ground that charge at that stage) the only way it could have played out is exactly how it did.

Of course. I'm wrong.

WTF? You know how the gaaboard works?
;D I think it's a 1 day ban for admitting you are wrong. Nobody has even been banned.

10plus years ive been comin here. First time.

Poster of the year fo sho'
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on April 02, 2018, 04:58:06 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 02, 2018, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 01, 2018, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? You're basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

FFS will uou lighten up.......Id bet 90% of fellas were thinking exactly the same thing

You can wrap yourself in sheeps wool if you were triggered by my comment

Why when Syferus is mentioned it always comes back to sheep?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 04:58:48 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 02, 2018, 02:46:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 01, 2018, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? You're basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

And you're basically a Tony F spouting shite on every thread. At least Fearon stuck to the bishops.

The mask is slipping a bit I see.


Quote from: whitey on April 02, 2018, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 01, 2018, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? You're basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

FFS will uou lighten up.......Id bet 90% of fellas were thinking exactly the same thing

You can wrap yourself in sheeps wool if you were triggered by my comment

Yeah, 90% of people here definitely think that when they look at protesters. You have clearly marked yourself out as someone who is living in a world far removed from most people so you'd want to be careful when trying to talk for the common man.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 05:08:12 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html)

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.

Yeah possibly otherwise they would have struggled to get itnpassed the PE stage.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 02, 2018, 05:31:18 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 04:58:48 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 02, 2018, 02:46:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 01, 2018, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? You're basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

And you're basically a Tony F spouting shite on every thread. At least Fearon stuck to the bishops.

The mask is slipping a bit I see.


Quote from: whitey on April 02, 2018, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 01, 2018, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? You're basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

FFS will uou lighten up.......Id bet 90% of fellas were thinking exactly the same thing

You can wrap yourself in sheeps wool if you were triggered by my comment

Yeah, 90% of people here definitely think that when they look at protesters. You have clearly marked yourself out as someone who is living in a world far removed from most people so you'd want to be careful when trying to talk for the common man.

When the first set of protesters came here they also left a bad feeling!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on April 02, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html)

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 10:57:05 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 02, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html)

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

The complainant wasn't interviewed as such. She was making a complaint and wasn't therefore subject to the same level of questioning as the defendants. The defence made a big play on this but it wouldn't be that unusual as indicated by the above link about the Met police changing their investigatory style. The PPS wouldn't be involved at the stage the complaint is being made but usually would meet with the complainant and some other key witnesses in advance of the hearing. Either they did this and proceeded with the trial which in hindsight seems a strange decision for the reasons BCB discussed above or they didn't which would be unusual.

As for DF's evidence it's hard to understand why the PPS thought the issue of whether or not whatever was going on looked consensual wasn't going to be the focus of her evidence. From the reports we are reading that was already in her police statement.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on April 03, 2018, 01:11:08 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 10:57:05 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 02, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html)

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

The complainant  wasn't interviewed as such. She was making a complaint and wasn't therefore subject to the same level of questioning as the defendants. The defence made a big play on this but it wouldn't be that unusual as indicated by the above link about the Met police changing their investigatory style. The PPS wouldn't be involved at the stage the complaint is being made but usually would meet with the complainant and some other key witnesses in advance of the hearing. Either they did this and proceeded with the trial which in hindsight seems a strange decision for the reasons BCB discussed above or they didn't which would be unusual.

As for DF's evidence it's hard to understand why the PPS thought the issue of whether or not whatever was going on looked consensual wasn't going to be the focus of her evidence. From the reports we are reading that was already in her police statement.
I did not say the complainant was interviewed as such, I wrote the witness DF was interviewed as such.
And afaiaa,  it was admitted by the investigation team that they did not test the evidence they had  collated,  with the prosecution  --  some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence was not done.
Either it was incompetence or the consequence of cutbacks in funding of public services, or both.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 03, 2018, 08:55:04 AM
Quote from: Main Street on April 03, 2018, 01:11:08 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 10:57:05 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 02, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html)

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

The complainant  wasn't interviewed as such. She was making a complaint and wasn't therefore subject to the same level of questioning as the defendants. The defence made a big play on this but it wouldn't be that unusual as indicated by the above link about the Met police changing their investigatory style. The PPS wouldn't be involved at the stage the complaint is being made but usually would meet with the complainant and some other key witnesses in advance of the hearing. Either they did this and proceeded with the trial which in hindsight seems a strange decision for the reasons BCB discussed above or they didn't which would be unusual.

As for DF's evidence it's hard to understand why the PPS thought the issue of whether or not whatever was going on looked consensual wasn't going to be the focus of her evidence. From the reports we are reading that was already in her police statement.
I did not say the complainant was interviewed as such, I wrote the witness DF was interviewed as such.
And afaiaa,  it was admitted by the investigation team that they did not test the evidence they had  collated,  with the prosecution  --  some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence was not done.
Either it was incompetence or the consequence of cutbacks in funding of public services, or both.

I wonder what the test was they were referring too
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 03, 2018, 10:54:40 AM
Caprea - maybe it's time to close this thread? Very little to be gained by keeping this going I'd suggest.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on April 03, 2018, 10:59:09 AM
So Craig Gilroy is in the dock now for a comment he made on a whatsapp group?

Whatever about not liking somebody or their misogyny I'm pretty sure you can't stop people from working just because they are a dick!!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 11:16:48 AM
Quote from: screenexile on April 03, 2018, 10:59:09 AM
So Craig Gilroy is in the dock now for a comment he made on a whatsapp group?

Whatever about not liking somebody or their misogyny I'm pretty sure you can't stop people from working just because they are a dick!!

Any sluts get bucked!!! ??
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 11:33:14 AM
Quote from: Main Street on April 02, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html)

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

But it's far, far harder, almost impossible, for a witness in such a situation to determine whether what they have seen is consensual or rape than to determine whether intercourse was occurring.

That is because the majority of rape victims do not "fight" or scream.

A witness cannot know what the complainant is feeling.

In such a scenario they will always revert to a presumption that what is going on is consensual.

You don't walk in on such a scenario and immediately think "rape".

Determining whether intercourse is occurring is a much simpler task.

Even the slightest non-consensual penile penetration (ie. it doesn't have to be what one would commonly imagine as penetration) is still rape, by the way.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 11:36:03 AM
Quote from: screenexile on April 03, 2018, 10:59:09 AM
So Craig Gilroy is in the dock now for a comment he made on a whatsapp group?

Whatever about not liking somebody or their misogyny I'm pretty sure you can't stop people from working just because they are a dick!!
Given what I read at the weekend, I'd say there's a fair chance this could end up in a lawsuit between Jackson and the IRFU.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 12:09:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 11:33:14 AM
Quote from: Main Street on April 02, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html)

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

But it's far, far harder, almost impossible, for a witness in such a situation to determine whether what they have seen is consensual or rape than to determine whether intercourse was occurring.

That is because the majority of rape victims do not "fight" or scream.

A witness cannot know what the complainant is feeling.

In such a scenario they will always revert to a presumption that what is going on is consensual.

You don't walk in on such a scenario and immediately think "rape".

Determining whether intercourse is occurring is a much simpler task.

Even the slightest non-consensual penile penetration (ie. it doesn't have to be what one would commonly imagine as penetration) is still rape, by the way.

And thats why the jury decide, not you. in all the evidence they heard they came up with the not guilty of rape verdict..

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 12:24:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 12:09:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 11:33:14 AM
Quote from: Main Street on April 02, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html)

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

But it's far, far harder, almost impossible, for a witness in such a situation to determine whether what they have seen is consensual or rape than to determine whether intercourse was occurring.

That is because the majority of rape victims do not "fight" or scream.

A witness cannot know what the complainant is feeling.

In such a scenario they will always revert to a presumption that what is going on is consensual.

You don't walk in on such a scenario and immediately think "rape".

Determining whether intercourse is occurring is a much simpler task.

Even the slightest non-consensual penile penetration (ie. it doesn't have to be what one would commonly imagine as penetration) is still rape, by the way.

And thats why the jury decide, not you. in all the evidence they heard they came up with the not guilty of rape verdict..

And your point is?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 01:15:20 PM
So, as ever, you don't have any point to make. Thanks.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on April 03, 2018, 02:45:30 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

aye shame we can't abuse women and keep our feet on their necks without all this fuss
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 03, 2018, 02:55:52 PM
Quote from: longballin on April 03, 2018, 02:45:30 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

aye shame we can't abuse women and keep our feet on their necks without all this fuss

+1  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 03:02:29 PM
Quote from: longballin on April 03, 2018, 02:45:30 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

aye shame we can't abuse women and keep our feet on their necks without all this fuss


Allowing them the right to vote is were it all went wrong
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on April 03, 2018, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

I don't think the protests do any harm, and if it helps people vent their anger then all well and good. It might also remind people to do the right thing next time they're out on the pull.

Protests in the occupied six are a waste of time, unless they are about civil rights or about flegs on the city hall. The brits will continue to pay more per head to 6 county occupants than what brummies or scousers get. That is, until the english finally catch on.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 03:22:08 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 03, 2018, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

I don't think the protests do any harm, and if it helps people vent their anger then all well and good. It might also remind people to do the right thing next time they're out on the pull.

Protests in the occupied six are a waste of time, unless they are about civil rights or about flegs on the city hall. The brits will continue to pay more per head to 6 county occupants than what brummies or scousers get. That is, until the english finally catch on.

But these protests indicate the men are to blame. Fact is, jury found them not guilty. Case closed. That's the end of it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 03, 2018, 03:44:12 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 03:22:08 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 03, 2018, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

I don't think the protests do any harm, and if it helps people vent their anger then all well and good. It might also remind people to do the right thing next time they're out on the pull.

Protests in the occupied six are a waste of time, unless they are about civil rights or about flegs on the city hall. The brits will continue to pay more per head to 6 county occupants than what brummies or scousers get. That is, until the english finally catch on.

But these protests indicate the men are to blame. Fact is, jury found them not guilty. Case closed. That's the end of it.

Have you any idea of the amount of violence, sexual or otherwise, that is perpetrated against mainly women that goes unreported all the time?

Also - you do understand that not being convicted doesn't mean everything was fine. Far from it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on April 03, 2018, 04:05:38 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 03:22:08 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 03, 2018, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

I don't think the protests do any harm, and if it helps people vent their anger then all well and good. It might also remind people to do the right thing next time they're out on the pull.

Protests in the occupied six are a waste of time, unless they are about civil rights or about flegs on the city hall. The brits will continue to pay more per head to 6 county occupants than what brummies or scousers get. That is, until the english finally catch on.

But these protests indicate the men are to blame. Fact is, jury found them not guilty. Case closed. That's the end of it.

Case also highlighted the attitude of these 'men' to women and the treatment of women in courts who make accusations. It has opened a huge can. It ain't the end of it as much as you might like it to be. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 04:31:28 PM
A few macho texts doesn't mean they are guilty.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on April 03, 2018, 04:58:18 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 04:31:28 PM
A few macho texts doesn't mean they are guilty.

you think that was 'macho'?  :-\
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: spuds on April 03, 2018, 05:01:34 PM
Surely get 100 pages out of this thread.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 05:17:17 PM
I find it very, ahem, "interesting" that so many men deny there is such a thing as rape culture.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: whitey on April 03, 2018, 05:17:34 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 03:22:08 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 03, 2018, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

I don't think the protests do any harm, and if it helps people vent their anger then all well and good. It might also remind people to do the right thing next time they're out on the pull.

Protests in the occupied six are a waste of time, unless they are about civil rights or about flegs on the city hall. The brits will continue to pay more per head to 6 county occupants than what brummies or scousers get. That is, until the english finally catch on.

But these protests indicate the men are to blame. Fact is, jury found them not guilty. Case closed. That's the end of it.

Is it maybe a case of over reach by the CPS? 

Could they have been charged with a lesser crime and therefore increase the  likelihood of a conviction.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: SLIGONIAN on April 03, 2018, 05:54:31 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 03, 2018, 03:44:12 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 03:22:08 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 03, 2018, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

I don't think the protests do any harm, and if it helps people vent their anger then all well and good. It might also remind people to do the right thing next time they're out on the pull.

Protests in the occupied six are a waste of time, unless they are about civil rights or about flegs on the city hall. The brits will continue to pay more per head to 6 county occupants than what brummies or scousers get. That is, until the english finally catch on.

But these protests indicate the men are to blame. Fact is, jury found them not guilty. Case closed. That's the end of it.

Have you any idea of the amount of violence, sexual or otherwise, that is perpetrated against mainly women that goes unreported all the time?

Also - you do understand that not being convicted doesn't mean everything was fine. Far from it.
+1

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 05:55:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 05:17:17 PM
I find it very, ahem, "interesting" that so many men deny there is such a thing as rape culture.

Who denies this?

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 03, 2018, 05:58:41 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 05:55:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 05:17:17 PM
I find it very, ahem, "interesting" that so many men deny there is such a thing as rape culture.

Who denies this?

Accepting it in the abstract but denying it in individual cases seems to be the modus operandi for people like yourself. Every major case is the exception to the rule in your eyes.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 06:03:31 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 03, 2018, 05:58:41 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 05:55:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 05:17:17 PM
I find it very, ahem, "interesting" that so many men deny there is such a thing as rape culture.

Who denies this?

Accepting it in the abstract but denying it in individual cases seems to be the modus operandi for people like yourself. Every major case is the exception to the rule in your eyes.

Why not take each case as it is and look at the facts first before cutting everyone down!

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 03, 2018, 06:05:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 06:03:31 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 03, 2018, 05:58:41 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 05:55:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 05:17:17 PM
I find it very, ahem, "interesting" that so many men deny there is such a thing as rape culture.

Who denies this?

Accepting it in the abstract but denying it in individual cases seems to be the modus operandi for people like yourself. Every major case is the exception to the rule in your eyes.

Why not take each case as it is and look at the facts first before cutting everyone down!

Why not take into account context so?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Avondhu star on April 03, 2018, 06:30:32 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 03, 2018, 06:05:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 06:03:31 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 03, 2018, 05:58:41 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 05:55:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 05:17:17 PM
I find it very, ahem, "interesting" that so many men deny there is such a thing as rape culture.

Who denies this?

Accepting it in the abstract but denying it in individual cases seems to be the modus operandi for people like yourself. Every major case is the exception to the rule in your eyes.

Why not take each case as it is and look at the facts first before cutting everyone down!

Why not take into account context so?
You're just lucky sheep can't speak
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: yellowcard on April 03, 2018, 06:46:34 PM
Craig Gilroy has now been removed from the Ulster squad for this weekends match as Ulster rugby carries out a review following the rape trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 06:53:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 06:03:31 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 03, 2018, 05:58:41 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 05:55:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 05:17:17 PM
I find it very, ahem, "interesting" that so many men deny there is such a thing as rape culture.

Who denies this?

Accepting it in the abstract but denying it in individual cases seems to be the modus operandi for people like yourself. Every major case is the exception to the rule in your eyes.

Why not take each case as it is and look at the facts first before cutting everyone down!

Yes I agree
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 07:01:06 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on April 03, 2018, 06:30:32 PM

You're just lucky sheep can't speak
But they can apparently type, as this post shows.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Owen Brannigan on April 03, 2018, 08:38:46 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 03, 2018, 06:46:34 PM
Craig Gilroy has now been removed from the Ulster squad for this weekends match as Ulster rugby carries out a review following the rape trial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43634687?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_news_ni&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=northern_ireland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43634687?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_news_ni&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=northern_ireland)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 03, 2018, 08:54:10 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 03, 2018, 05:17:34 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 03:22:08 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 03, 2018, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 03, 2018, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 01:03:53 PM
The trial is over and your point is pointless!

Yes, the trial is over. Somebody should tell those protestors. Why don't they protest about something that would be beneficial to the country? The banks fcuk the place, cuts to everything, thousands homeless, hospitals under pressure, roads woeful. Why didn't they join the protest for legacy inquiries, where their fellow countrymen and women were murdered by British state collusion? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to any of that. Idiots.

I don't think the protests do any harm, and if it helps people vent their anger then all well and good. It might also remind people to do the right thing next time they're out on the pull.

Protests in the occupied six are a waste of time, unless they are about civil rights or about flegs on the city hall. The brits will continue to pay more per head to 6 county occupants than what brummies or scousers get. That is, until the english finally catch on.

But these protests indicate the men are to blame. Fact is, jury found them not guilty. Case closed. That's the end of it.

Is it maybe a case of over reach by the CPS? 

Could they have been charged with a lesser crime and therefore increase the  likelihood of a conviction.

No. They were charged with the offences the PPS believed they had committed. Had they committed lesser offences those either would have been charged or depending on the offence may have been open to the jury as an alternative verdict. For example. Jackson was charged with two counts rape because the complainant alleged he used his penis and sexual assault because she also alleged at a different stage he used his finger/fingers or had. Had the jury not been convinced he used his penis on the first occasion but did believe he used some other part of his body then they could have acquitted of rape but convicted him of a sexual assault. He could also then have been convicted of the sexual assault he was charged with as the complainant alleged they were two separate instances.

The PPS weren't over reaching as you put it although as mentioned above by BCB in hindsight questions will be asked over other aspects of their processes
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: omaghjoe on April 04, 2018, 04:19:18 AM
So I sorta followed it at the start.... thought it didnt look good for the accused after the complainants testimony but then thought it looked a lot for them after the "witness at the door" testimony.
Anything change in the meantime or is anyone willing to fill me in the key points from then on... Sorry... just too much shear crap online to waste my time trying to make sense of it
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on April 04, 2018, 04:24:52 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 03, 2018, 08:38:46 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 03, 2018, 06:46:34 PM
Craig Gilroy has now been removed from the Ulster squad for this weekends match as Ulster rugby carries out a review following the rape trial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43634687?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_news_ni&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=northern_ireland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43634687?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_news_ni&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=northern_ireland)

What exactly did CG say?

I firmly believe that there is not a rape culture anywhere but in Ulster Rugby there is a shag competition.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 08:20:08 AM
Quote from: Orior on April 04, 2018, 04:24:52 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 03, 2018, 08:38:46 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 03, 2018, 06:46:34 PM
Craig Gilroy has now been removed from the Ulster squad for this weekends match as Ulster rugby carries out a review following the rape trial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43634687?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_news_ni&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=northern_ireland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43634687?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_news_ni&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=northern_ireland)

What exactly did CG say?

I firmly believe that there is not a rape culture anywhere but I'm Ulster Rugby there is a shame competition.
He sent a direct message to one of the defendants asking "did any sluts get fucked?" Not exactly charming but I think it's a bit much chasing a fella for a private message sent to a mate. He has apologised so people would be better moving on. It doesn't take long for these things to turn into a witch hunt.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on April 04, 2018, 08:24:13 AM
I watched The Inbetweeners last night and laughed at a couple of scenes. Oh dear, how bad am I?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 09:21:49 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 08:20:08 AM
Quote from: Orior on April 04, 2018, 04:24:52 AM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 03, 2018, 08:38:46 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 03, 2018, 06:46:34 PM
Craig Gilroy has now been removed from the Ulster squad for this weekends match as Ulster rugby carries out a review following the rape trial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43634687?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_news_ni&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=northern_ireland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43634687?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_news_ni&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=northern_ireland)

What exactly did CG say?

I firmly believe that there is not a rape culture anywhere but I'm Ulster Rugby there is a shame competition.
He sent a direct message to one of the defendants asking "did any sluts get fucked?" Not exactly charming but I think it's a bit much chasing a fella for a private message sent to a mate. He has apologised so people would be better moving on. It doesn't take long for these things to turn into a witch hunt.

The IRFU are already under severe pressure within their own internal structures around gender equality and the branches are reviewing their own governance and bye-laws to ensure gender equality is reflected properly. Having high profile players writing messages albeit privately that at best could be labeled disrespectful and worst down right misogynist compounds the impression that the IRFU is an old boys club. These players do have behaviour clauses within their contracts so internal review processes have to be followed, this obviously couldn't have been completed while awaiting or during the trial.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
it takes something special to call suspending a player with a morals clause caught saying shît like that a witch hunt. IRFU can't be soft on players if it wants to maintain some integrity.

The sheer din of odious stupidity from Orior hasn't stopped I see. Rape culture doesn't exsist. Righto, kid.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 04, 2018, 09:35:16 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
it takes something special to call suspending a player with a morals clause caught saying shît like that a witch hunt. IRFU can't be soft on players if it wants to maintain some integrity.

The sheer din of odious stupidity from Orior hasn't stopped I see. Rape culture doesn't exsist. Righto, kid.

Syferus you must have slept through your teens and twenties and woke up when you hit 60!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 09:50:22 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
it takes something special to call suspending a player with a morals clause caught saying shît like that a witch hunt. IRFU can't be soft on players if it wants to maintain some integrity.

The sheer din of odious stupidity from Orior hasn't stopped I see. Rape culture doesn't exsist. Righto, kid.
Re. this and Dinny's post, I have no issue with him getting his knuckles rapped within an employment context. What I have an issue with is keyboard warriors baying for blood and setting out to ruin the career of someone for a misdemeanour.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 09:53:58 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 09:50:22 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
it takes something special to call suspending a player with a morals clause caught saying shît like that a witch hunt. IRFU can't be soft on players if it wants to maintain some integrity.

The sheer din of odious stupidity from Orior hasn't stopped I see. Rape culture doesn't exsist. Righto, kid.
Re. this and Dinny's post, I have no issue with him getting his knuckles rapped within an employment context. What I have an issue with is keyboard warriors baying for blood and setting out to ruin the career of someone for a misdemeanour.

Stop posting up rubbish. Nobody has been "baying for blood" or conducting a witch hunt about Gilroy. You have an issue with something that's a figment of your imagination.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 10:05:34 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 09:53:58 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 09:50:22 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
it takes something special to call suspending a player with a morals clause caught saying shît like that a witch hunt. IRFU can't be soft on players if it wants to maintain some integrity.

The sheer din of odious stupidity from Orior hasn't stopped I see. Rape culture doesn't exsist. Righto, kid.
Re. this and Dinny's post, I have no issue with him getting his knuckles rapped within an employment context. What I have an issue with is keyboard warriors baying for blood and setting out to ruin the career of someone for a misdemeanour.

Stop posting up rubbish. Nobody has been "baying for blood" or conducting a witch hunt about Gilroy. You have an issue with something that's a figment of your imagination.
Listen sweetheart when I'm posting something directed at you, you'll be the first to know about it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 10:27:21 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 10:05:34 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 09:53:58 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 09:50:22 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
it takes something special to call suspending a player with a morals clause caught saying shît like that a witch hunt. IRFU can't be soft on players if it wants to maintain some integrity.

The sheer din of odious stupidity from Orior hasn't stopped I see. Rape culture doesn't exsist. Righto, kid.
Re. this and Dinny's post, I have no issue with him getting his knuckles rapped within an employment context. What I have an issue with is keyboard warriors baying for blood and setting out to ruin the career of someone for a misdemeanour.

Stop posting up rubbish. Nobody has been "baying for blood" or conducting a witch hunt about Gilroy. You have an issue with something that's a figment of your imagination.
Listen sweetheart when I'm posting something directed at you, you'll be the first to know about it.

That's the trouble though with posting on an internet forum. Anyone can read it so if it's complete horseshit there's a good chance people will point that out. Carry on though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 04, 2018, 10:30:18 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 10:27:21 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 10:05:34 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 09:53:58 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 09:50:22 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
it takes something special to call suspending a player with a morals clause caught saying shît like that a witch hunt. IRFU can't be soft on players if it wants to maintain some integrity.

The sheer din of odious stupidity from Orior hasn't stopped I see. Rape culture doesn't exsist. Righto, kid.
Re. this and Dinny's post, I have no issue with him getting his knuckles rapped within an employment context. What I have an issue with is keyboard warriors baying for blood and setting out to ruin the career of someone for a misdemeanour.

Stop posting up rubbish. Nobody has been "baying for blood" or conducting a witch hunt about Gilroy. You have an issue with something that's a figment of your imagination.
Listen sweetheart when I'm posting something directed at you, you'll be the first to know about it.

That's the trouble though with posting on an internet forum. Anyone can read it so if it's complete horseshit there's a good chance people will point that out. Carry on though.

;D ;D I havent seen you reply to yourself yet
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hardy on April 04, 2018, 11:56:47 AM
The Ulster rugby playing staff seems to be disproportionately populated with an odd combination of adolescent-minded cretins boosting each others' repressed sexual confidence on the one hand and evangelical Holy-Joe God-botherers on the other. Or maybe they're fingers of the same hand?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 12:15:59 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 04, 2018, 11:56:47 AM
The Ulster rugby playing staff seems to be disproportionately populated with an odd combination of adolescent-minded cretins boosting each others' repressed sexual confidence on the one hand and evangelical Holy-Joe God-botherers on the other. Or maybe they're fingers of the same hand?

Good Second Captains podcast with Richie Sadlier and Sinead O'Carroll (the Journal) there recently on related issues. Sadlier talks about the mentality of professional sportsmen.....quite interesting. Well worth a listen.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
If any of you think that the messages in this WhatsApp group are not reflective of lots of other non-Ulster rugby type 'lads' groups then you're very blind and innocent. The advent of technology has allowed men to brag and boast about their adolescent, boorish sex lives the way most groups of young men did over the years but now with a bit more spontaneous interaction and unfortunately worse language. This doesn't mean they are all sexual predators. It means they are assholes. And this notion of privilege is nothing to do with Ulster rugby and everything to do with modern 'millennial ' thinking. Freedom of communication, freedom of travel, excess alcohol and drugs, reasonable amount of surplus cash, and a level of expectation in terms of what the world owes them has seen the behaviour of young adults, men and women, change dramatically. Guess what though folks, you and I have helped create this phenomenon. Society has created them and concepts like 'no losers' in sport and every kid getting a medal from a very early age has meant that there are lowering levels of boundaries. Kids get what they want at whatever age they are and as a result when they get to young adult stage they have high expectations and low levels of tolerance. I see it in my own kids and it's a daily battle particularly when there's two opposing forces trying to instill a level of controls.

The rugby players should not have 'morality' clauses in their contracts. There should be no need for them but there is because of the way the world turns now. Control is being subjugated at a very young age by parenting through technology and lack of controls. I don't think that this is the only reason and certainly I would not suggest that the likes of PJ was left in front of a tv screen. Probably the complete opposite but in a world where peers show scant regards for the others in the world then the influence is always there. Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 04, 2018, 12:37:32 PM
Very good BC1.. My own kids have the same high expectations and as parents we have encouraged that, rightly or wrongly as it is in some cases...

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 12:46:02 PM
Amen to all of that BC1.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Brick Tamlin on April 04, 2018, 12:59:25 PM
The best thread on the board ever. Bar none.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:59:32 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/application-to-lift-reporting-restrictions-on-belfast-rape-trial-to-be-heard-next-week-36773969.html

More mileage in this yet.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rudi on April 04, 2018, 01:01:37 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
If any of you think that the messages in this WhatsApp group are not reflective of lots of other non-Ulster rugby type 'lads' groups then you're very blind and innocent. The advent of technology has allowed men to brag and boast about their adolescent, boorish sex lives the way most groups of young men did over the years but now with a bit more spontaneous interaction and unfortunately worse language. This doesn't mean they are all sexual predators. It means they are assholes. And this notion of privilege is nothing to do with Ulster rugby and everything to do with modern 'millennial ' thinking. Freedom of communication, freedom of travel, excess alcohol and drugs, reasonable amount of surplus cash, and a level of expectation in terms of what the world owes them has seen the behaviour of young adults, men and women, change dramatically. Guess what though folks, you and I have helped create this phenomenon. Society has created them and concepts like 'no losers' in sport and every kid getting a medal from a very early age has meant that there are lowering levels of boundaries. Kids get what they want at whatever age they are and as a result when they get to young adult stage they have high expectations and low levels of tolerance. I see it in my own kids and it's a daily battle particularly when there's two opposing forces trying to instill a level of controls.

The rugby players should not have 'morality' clauses in their contracts. There should be no need for them but there is because of the way the world turns now. Control is being subjugated at a very young age by parenting through technology and lack of controls. I don't think that this is the only reason and certainly I would not suggest that the likes of PJ was left in front of a tv screen. Probably the complete opposite but in a world where peers show scant regards for the others in the world then the influence is always there. Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Excellent post. Some might argue its difficult to respect people who don't respect themselves.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 04, 2018, 01:14:53 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:59:32 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/application-to-lift-reporting-restrictions-on-belfast-rape-trial-to-be-heard-next-week-36773969.html

More mileage in this yet.

More trial by media! news outlets looking to get more on this.. the girl will be exposed here at some point, even though most (if you went looking for) know who she is
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 01:17:29 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
If any of you think that the messages in this WhatsApp group are not reflective of lots of other non-Ulster rugby type 'lads' groups then you're very blind and innocent. The advent of technology has allowed men to brag and boast about their adolescent, boorish sex lives the way most groups of young men did over the years but now with a bit more spontaneous interaction and unfortunately worse language. This doesn't mean they are all sexual predators. It means they are assholes. And this notion of privilege is nothing to do with Ulster rugby and everything to do with modern 'millennial ' thinking. Freedom of communication, freedom of travel, excess alcohol and drugs, reasonable amount of surplus cash, and a level of expectation in terms of what the world owes them has seen the behaviour of young adults, men and women, change dramatically. Guess what though folks, you and I have helped create this phenomenon. Society has created them and concepts like 'no losers' in sport and every kid getting a medal from a very early age has meant that there are lowering levels of boundaries. Kids get what they want at whatever age they are and as a result when they get to young adult stage they have high expectations and low levels of tolerance. I see it in my own kids and it's a daily battle particularly when there's two opposing forces trying to instill a level of controls.

The rugby players should not have 'morality' clauses in their contracts. There should be no need for them but there is because of the way the world turns now. Control is being subjugated at a very young age by parenting through technology and lack of controls. I don't think that this is the only reason and certainly I would not suggest that the likes of PJ was left in front of a tv screen. Probably the complete opposite but in a world where peers show scant regards for the others in the world then the influence is always there. Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Agree with a lot of what you say but the bit highlighted in bold is not something I can agree with it. Kids know when they lose or win, the concept is to promote fun ahead of just winning. Sport for children should never be about winning, yes as they get older (13+) introduce more competition but majority of kids leave sport because it's all about winning or it's too competitive or zero game time or pressure from parents and coaches to win, essentially they lose ownership of their own experience. It's not about dropping boundaries, it's about making boundaries realistic and more in tune to what children want not what adults think they want.  I just don't think you can equate sports bodies trying to increase participation levels at young ages with a sense of entitlement as they enter their late teens early 20s even as a contribution factor.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Rape culture exists among a huge proportion of men.

I'd like to see any arguments for why people think it doesn't.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 01:23:05 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Rape culture exists among a huge proportion of men.

I'd like to see any arguments for why people think it doesn't.

Sorry but the burden is on you to prove that it does exist.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on April 04, 2018, 01:24:57 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Rape culture exists among a huge proportion of men.

I'd like to see any arguments for why people think it doesn't.

Genuine question - I've seen this 'rape culture' soundbyte used hundreds of times in the past few weeks.  What do you mean by this? How do you define it?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 01:27:15 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 01:17:29 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
If any of you think that the messages in this WhatsApp group are not reflective of lots of other non-Ulster rugby type 'lads' groups then you're very blind and innocent. The advent of technology has allowed men to brag and boast about their adolescent, boorish sex lives the way most groups of young men did over the years but now with a bit more spontaneous interaction and unfortunately worse language. This doesn't mean they are all sexual predators. It means they are assholes. And this notion of privilege is nothing to do with Ulster rugby and everything to do with modern 'millennial ' thinking. Freedom of communication, freedom of travel, excess alcohol and drugs, reasonable amount of surplus cash, and a level of expectation in terms of what the world owes them has seen the behaviour of young adults, men and women, change dramatically. Guess what though folks, you and I have helped create this phenomenon. Society has created them and concepts like 'no losers' in sport and every kid getting a medal from a very early age has meant that there are lowering levels of boundaries. Kids get what they want at whatever age they are and as a result when they get to young adult stage they have high expectations and low levels of tolerance. I see it in my own kids and it's a daily battle particularly when there's two opposing forces trying to instill a level of controls.

The rugby players should not have 'morality' clauses in their contracts. There should be no need for them but there is because of the way the world turns now. Control is being subjugated at a very young age by parenting through technology and lack of controls. I don't think that this is the only reason and certainly I would not suggest that the likes of PJ was left in front of a tv screen. Probably the complete opposite but in a world where peers show scant regards for the others in the world then the influence is always there. Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Agree with a lot of what you say but the bit highlighted in bold is not something I can agree with it. Kids know when they lose or win, the concept is to promote fun ahead of just winning. Sport for children should never be about winning, yes as they get older (13+) introduce more competition but majority of kids leave sport because it's all about winning or it's too competitive or zero game time or pressure from parents and coaches to win, essentially they lose ownership of their own experience. It's not about dropping boundaries, it's about making boundaries realistic and more in tune to what children want not what adults think they want.  I just don't think you can equate sports bodies trying to increase participation levels at young ages with a sense of entitlement as they enter their late teens early 20s even as a contribution factor.

More in a general societal sense Dinny, school sports day, everyone gets a medal, School's art competition, everyone is a winner, this is not a hard and fast rule but I have seen an awful lot of this type of attitude, particularly when I comes to underage coaching when a parent questions why their son is not getting on. I have a rule for the team I coach for when we attend blitz's. The players who are on the age all go before any younger lad, no matter how good some of the younger lads are. The younger lads rotate if needed and the same player never goes to 2 blitz's in a row out of the younger group no matter who they are or how good they are. My attitude is to improve the lads on the older group and the younger lads have another year to make that step. Some parents and fellow coaches have argued against this as I've left better young players at home over weaker older players but I stand by my approach. The parents now understand that they cannot demand and as a consequence the players understand better also. This means that no everyone's johnny gets a game but when they do get it they appreciate it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 04, 2018, 01:28:51 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 04, 2018, 01:24:57 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Rape culture exists among a huge proportion of men.

I'd like to see any arguments for why people think it doesn't.

Genuine question - I've seen this 'rape culture' soundbyte used hundreds of times in the past few weeks.  What do you mean by this? How do you define it?

Have the popcorn at the ready for this one!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 01:29:05 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 01:17:29 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
If any of you think that the messages in this WhatsApp group are not reflective of lots of other non-Ulster rugby type 'lads' groups then you're very blind and innocent. The advent of technology has allowed men to brag and boast about their adolescent, boorish sex lives the way most groups of young men did over the years but now with a bit more spontaneous interaction and unfortunately worse language. This doesn't mean they are all sexual predators. It means they are assholes. And this notion of privilege is nothing to do with Ulster rugby and everything to do with modern 'millennial ' thinking. Freedom of communication, freedom of travel, excess alcohol and drugs, reasonable amount of surplus cash, and a level of expectation in terms of what the world owes them has seen the behaviour of young adults, men and women, change dramatically. Guess what though folks, you and I have helped create this phenomenon. Society has created them and concepts like 'no losers' in sport and every kid getting a medal from a very early age has meant that there are lowering levels of boundaries. Kids get what they want at whatever age they are and as a result when they get to young adult stage they have high expectations and low levels of tolerance. I see it in my own kids and it's a daily battle particularly when there's two opposing forces trying to instill a level of controls.

The rugby players should not have 'morality' clauses in their contracts. There should be no need for them but there is because of the way the world turns now. Control is being subjugated at a very young age by parenting through technology and lack of controls. I don't think that this is the only reason and certainly I would not suggest that the likes of PJ was left in front of a tv screen. Probably the complete opposite but in a world where peers show scant regards for the others in the world then the influence is always there. Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Agree with a lot of what you say but the bit highlighted in bold is not something I can agree with it. Kids know when they lose or win, the concept is to promote fun ahead of just winning. Sport for children should never be about winning, yes as they get older (13+) introduce more competition but majority of kids leave sport because it's all about winning or it's too competitive or zero game time or pressure from parents and coaches to win, essentially they lose ownership of their own experience. It's not about dropping boundaries, it's about making boundaries realistic and more in tune to what children want not what adults think they want.  I just don't think you can equate sports bodies trying to increase participation levels at young ages with a sense of entitlement as they enter their late teens early 20s even as a contribution factor.

I found it an absolutely incredible leap to link encouragement of participation in sport in a less pressurised environment to predatory sexual behaviour.

Things have never been more pressurised for young people. Far from creating a society where there "no losers", young people these days grow up with more pressure on them than ever before. Greater pressure to get good exam results, greater pressure at work, greater pressure in terms of finding an affordable place to live, pressure to look good, pressure to conform.

It's only a short leap from that to claiming that the abolition of corporal punishment in schools is to blame for a predatory sexual culture.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:30:57 PM
What is a 'rape culture'?

Usually when someone says a culture exists, it means it is pervasive within the group, or society in general. Websters dictionary defines it as

1 a : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (such as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time popular culture Southern culture
b : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization a corporate culture focused on the bottom line
c : the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic studying the effect of computers on print culture
Changing the culture of materialism will take time ... —Peggy O'Mara
d : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations


I don't know that there is a rape culture, where there's a shared attitude, or set of values, that rape is ok. Rape as a crime is abhorrent in society I would think. 

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 01:34:18 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:59:32 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/application-to-lift-reporting-restrictions-on-belfast-rape-trial-to-be-heard-next-week-36773969.html

More mileage in this yet.
To what end? What restrictions were in place bar legal restrictions on naming the complainant?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 01:36:41 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 01:29:05 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 01:17:29 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
If any of you think that the messages in this WhatsApp group are not reflective of lots of other non-Ulster rugby type 'lads' groups then you're very blind and innocent. The advent of technology has allowed men to brag and boast about their adolescent, boorish sex lives the way most groups of young men did over the years but now with a bit more spontaneous interaction and unfortunately worse language. This doesn't mean they are all sexual predators. It means they are assholes. And this notion of privilege is nothing to do with Ulster rugby and everything to do with modern 'millennial ' thinking. Freedom of communication, freedom of travel, excess alcohol and drugs, reasonable amount of surplus cash, and a level of expectation in terms of what the world owes them has seen the behaviour of young adults, men and women, change dramatically. Guess what though folks, you and I have helped create this phenomenon. Society has created them and concepts like 'no losers' in sport and every kid getting a medal from a very early age has meant that there are lowering levels of boundaries. Kids get what they want at whatever age they are and as a result when they get to young adult stage they have high expectations and low levels of tolerance. I see it in my own kids and it's a daily battle particularly when there's two opposing forces trying to instill a level of controls.

The rugby players should not have 'morality' clauses in their contracts. There should be no need for them but there is because of the way the world turns now. Control is being subjugated at a very young age by parenting through technology and lack of controls. I don't think that this is the only reason and certainly I would not suggest that the likes of PJ was left in front of a tv screen. Probably the complete opposite but in a world where peers show scant regards for the others in the world then the influence is always there. Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Agree with a lot of what you say but the bit highlighted in bold is not something I can agree with it. Kids know when they lose or win, the concept is to promote fun ahead of just winning. Sport for children should never be about winning, yes as they get older (13+) introduce more competition but majority of kids leave sport because it's all about winning or it's too competitive or zero game time or pressure from parents and coaches to win, essentially they lose ownership of their own experience. It's not about dropping boundaries, it's about making boundaries realistic and more in tune to what children want not what adults think they want.  I just don't think you can equate sports bodies trying to increase participation levels at young ages with a sense of entitlement as they enter their late teens early 20s even as a contribution factor.

I found it an absolutely incredible leap to link encouragement of participation in sport in a less pressurised environment to predatory sexual behaviour.

Things have never been more pressurised for young people. Far from creating a society where there "no losers", young people these days grow up with more pressure on them than ever before. Greater pressure to get good exam results, greater pressure at work, greater pressure in terms of finding an affordable place to live, pressure to look good, pressure to conform.

It's only a short leap from that to claiming that the abolition of corporal punishment in schools is to blame for a predatory sexual culture.

A straight forward link that there is a growing sense of entitlement from a very young age. I have 2 sons and a daughter and I attend lots of sporting, musical and dance events with them and the levels of expectations are very high. I agree with you on that and the pressure is very high. However, as they get older there is a greater expectation from them that they get everything their way and if they don't then there are problems. I dispute that there is any more pressure on my son of 19 then there was on me at 19. I see it at first hand. I believe in fact we just had better coping mechanisms.

Also I dispute that there is a 'rape culture' , there is an unreal expectation culture in terms of what sex and sexual relations are and a lot of that has got to do with the free availability of porn and lack of education through the home and schools about this. Of you have evidence of the rape culture I'm happy to read it and be proven wrong.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 01:34:18 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:59:32 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/application-to-lift-reporting-restrictions-on-belfast-rape-trial-to-be-heard-next-week-36773969.html

More mileage in this yet.
To what end? What restrictions were in place bar legal restrictions on naming the complainant?

It's what I said immediately after the trial. They're going to go after her, I'm sure of it. Especially with all the subsequent protests.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:41:59 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 01:36:41 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 01:29:05 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 01:17:29 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
If any of you think that the messages in this WhatsApp group are not reflective of lots of other non-Ulster rugby type 'lads' groups then you're very blind and innocent. The advent of technology has allowed men to brag and boast about their adolescent, boorish sex lives the way most groups of young men did over the years but now with a bit more spontaneous interaction and unfortunately worse language. This doesn't mean they are all sexual predators. It means they are assholes. And this notion of privilege is nothing to do with Ulster rugby and everything to do with modern 'millennial ' thinking. Freedom of communication, freedom of travel, excess alcohol and drugs, reasonable amount of surplus cash, and a level of expectation in terms of what the world owes them has seen the behaviour of young adults, men and women, change dramatically. Guess what though folks, you and I have helped create this phenomenon. Society has created them and concepts like 'no losers' in sport and every kid getting a medal from a very early age has meant that there are lowering levels of boundaries. Kids get what they want at whatever age they are and as a result when they get to young adult stage they have high expectations and low levels of tolerance. I see it in my own kids and it's a daily battle particularly when there's two opposing forces trying to instill a level of controls.

The rugby players should not have 'morality' clauses in their contracts. There should be no need for them but there is because of the way the world turns now. Control is being subjugated at a very young age by parenting through technology and lack of controls. I don't think that this is the only reason and certainly I would not suggest that the likes of PJ was left in front of a tv screen. Probably the complete opposite but in a world where peers show scant regards for the others in the world then the influence is always there. Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Agree with a lot of what you say but the bit highlighted in bold is not something I can agree with it. Kids know when they lose or win, the concept is to promote fun ahead of just winning. Sport for children should never be about winning, yes as they get older (13+) introduce more competition but majority of kids leave sport because it's all about winning or it's too competitive or zero game time or pressure from parents and coaches to win, essentially they lose ownership of their own experience. It's not about dropping boundaries, it's about making boundaries realistic and more in tune to what children want not what adults think they want.  I just don't think you can equate sports bodies trying to increase participation levels at young ages with a sense of entitlement as they enter their late teens early 20s even as a contribution factor.

I found it an absolutely incredible leap to link encouragement of participation in sport in a less pressurised environment to predatory sexual behaviour.

Things have never been more pressurised for young people. Far from creating a society where there "no losers", young people these days grow up with more pressure on them than ever before. Greater pressure to get good exam results, greater pressure at work, greater pressure in terms of finding an affordable place to live, pressure to look good, pressure to conform.

It's only a short leap from that to claiming that the abolition of corporal punishment in schools is to blame for a predatory sexual culture.

A straight forward link that there is a growing sense of entitlement from a very young age. I have 2 sons and a daughter and I attend lots of sporting, musical and dance events with them and the levels of expectations are very high. I agree with you on that and the pressure is very high. However, as they get older there is a greater expectation from them that they get everything their way and if they don't then there are problems. I dispute that there is any more pressure on my son of 19 then there was on me at 19. I see it at first hand. I believe in fact we just had better coping mechanisms.

Also I dispute that there is a 'rape culture' , there is an unreal expectation culture in terms of what sex and sexual relations are and a lot of that has got to do with the free availability of porn and lack of education through the home and schools about this. Of you have evidence of the rape culture I'm happy to read it and be proven wrong.

I disagree that a very young child needs to be placed in an ultra competitive environment. There's nothing wrong with encouraging all of them, at young ages, and I think it's a stretch to say that that builds a sense of entitlement. Kids know whether they win or lose, and rewarding them for trying their best is a worthy exercise in and of itself.

Once a child reaches u12 or u14 at the latest, that changes anyway, and there's a lot of lessons then about the sad side of losing, so I wouldn't worry that we are creating a massive problem at that age. I agree that it's important to learn about winning, losing, the rewards you get when you put something into it, and the way to deal with unfairness or bad luck. But I don't think that has to be at 6,7,8,9 and 10. At that age it's about participation, enjoyment, trying your best.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 01:47:45 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 01:34:18 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:59:32 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/application-to-lift-reporting-restrictions-on-belfast-rape-trial-to-be-heard-next-week-36773969.html

More mileage in this yet.
To what end? What restrictions were in place bar legal restrictions on naming the complainant?

It's what I said immediately after the trial. They're going to go after her, I'm sure of it. Especially with all the subsequent protests.

Who?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 04, 2018, 01:50:17 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 01:47:45 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 01:34:18 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:59:32 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/application-to-lift-reporting-restrictions-on-belfast-rape-trial-to-be-heard-next-week-36773969.html

More mileage in this yet.
To what end? What restrictions were in place bar legal restrictions on naming the complainant?


It's what I said immediately after the trial. They're going to go after her, I'm sure of it. Especially with all the subsequent protests.

Who?

The media, as in fairness they dont give a shit about any of them
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:50:53 PM
The media.  If reporting restrictions are lifted, I expect her to be publicly named, and then some pieces about who she is, her background etc. Then the 'unnamed friend' sources with some gossipy stuff. This application should be rejected.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 01:51:13 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 01:27:15 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 01:17:29 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
If any of you think that the messages in this WhatsApp group are not reflective of lots of other non-Ulster rugby type 'lads' groups then you're very blind and innocent. The advent of technology has allowed men to brag and boast about their adolescent, boorish sex lives the way most groups of young men did over the years but now with a bit more spontaneous interaction and unfortunately worse language. This doesn't mean they are all sexual predators. It means they are assholes. And this notion of privilege is nothing to do with Ulster rugby and everything to do with modern 'millennial ' thinking. Freedom of communication, freedom of travel, excess alcohol and drugs, reasonable amount of surplus cash, and a level of expectation in terms of what the world owes them has seen the behaviour of young adults, men and women, change dramatically. Guess what though folks, you and I have helped create this phenomenon. Society has created them and concepts like 'no losers' in sport and every kid getting a medal from a very early age has meant that there are lowering levels of boundaries. Kids get what they want at whatever age they are and as a result when they get to young adult stage they have high expectations and low levels of tolerance. I see it in my own kids and it's a daily battle particularly when there's two opposing forces trying to instill a level of controls.

The rugby players should not have 'morality' clauses in their contracts. There should be no need for them but there is because of the way the world turns now. Control is being subjugated at a very young age by parenting through technology and lack of controls. I don't think that this is the only reason and certainly I would not suggest that the likes of PJ was left in front of a tv screen. Probably the complete opposite but in a world where peers show scant regards for the others in the world then the influence is always there. Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Agree with a lot of what you say but the bit highlighted in bold is not something I can agree with it. Kids know when they lose or win, the concept is to promote fun ahead of just winning. Sport for children should never be about winning, yes as they get older (13+) introduce more competition but majority of kids leave sport because it's all about winning or it's too competitive or zero game time or pressure from parents and coaches to win, essentially they lose ownership of their own experience. It's not about dropping boundaries, it's about making boundaries realistic and more in tune to what children want not what adults think they want.  I just don't think you can equate sports bodies trying to increase participation levels at young ages with a sense of entitlement as they enter their late teens early 20s even as a contribution factor.

More in a general societal sense Dinny, school sports day, everyone gets a medal, School's art competition, everyone is a winner, this is not a hard and fast rule but I have seen an awful lot of this type of attitude, particularly when I comes to underage coaching when a parent questions why their son is not getting on. I have a rule for the team I coach for when we attend blitz's. The players who are on the age all go before any younger lad, no matter how good some of the younger lads are. The younger lads rotate if needed and the same player never goes to 2 blitz's in a row out of the younger group no matter who they are or how good they are. My attitude is to improve the lads on the older group and the younger lads have another year to make that step. Some parents and fellow coaches have argued against this as I've left better young players at home over weaker older players but I stand by my approach. The parents now understand that they cannot demand and as a consequence the players understand better also. This means that no everyone's johnny gets a game but when they do get it they appreciate it.

Ah ok more context is always good. Don't disagree with that, I'm probably lucky in football we have close to 40 pure u7s and about 20 pure u7s in rugby so we have loads of teams that we try and ensure are all at the same level. We do have on kid (his Dad was a GAA superstar) left foot, right foot, all the skills, every boy wants to be on his team because they know they will win :) When I coach teenagers I do rotate players, always trying to build depth and competition and it has cost me at u14/u15 level in terms of results but it really rewards at the older u17/u18 levels in terms of winning cups. I am a narky fecker on the sideline so parents tend to be afraid of me, I like that perception. So when they get to 17 or 18 they know what it feels like to lose, they definitely appreciate it more.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 01:51:29 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:41:59 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 01:36:41 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 01:29:05 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 01:17:29 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
If any of you think that the messages in this WhatsApp group are not reflective of lots of other non-Ulster rugby type 'lads' groups then you're very blind and innocent. The advent of technology has allowed men to brag and boast about their adolescent, boorish sex lives the way most groups of young men did over the years but now with a bit more spontaneous interaction and unfortunately worse language. This doesn't mean they are all sexual predators. It means they are assholes. And this notion of privilege is nothing to do with Ulster rugby and everything to do with modern 'millennial ' thinking. Freedom of communication, freedom of travel, excess alcohol and drugs, reasonable amount of surplus cash, and a level of expectation in terms of what the world owes them has seen the behaviour of young adults, men and women, change dramatically. Guess what though folks, you and I have helped create this phenomenon. Society has created them and concepts like 'no losers' in sport and every kid getting a medal from a very early age has meant that there are lowering levels of boundaries. Kids get what they want at whatever age they are and as a result when they get to young adult stage they have high expectations and low levels of tolerance. I see it in my own kids and it's a daily battle particularly when there's two opposing forces trying to instill a level of controls.

The rugby players should not have 'morality' clauses in their contracts. There should be no need for them but there is because of the way the world turns now. Control is being subjugated at a very young age by parenting through technology and lack of controls. I don't think that this is the only reason and certainly I would not suggest that the likes of PJ was left in front of a tv screen. Probably the complete opposite but in a world where peers show scant regards for the others in the world then the influence is always there. Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Agree with a lot of what you say but the bit highlighted in bold is not something I can agree with it. Kids know when they lose or win, the concept is to promote fun ahead of just winning. Sport for children should never be about winning, yes as they get older (13+) introduce more competition but majority of kids leave sport because it's all about winning or it's too competitive or zero game time or pressure from parents and coaches to win, essentially they lose ownership of their own experience. It's not about dropping boundaries, it's about making boundaries realistic and more in tune to what children want not what adults think they want.  I just don't think you can equate sports bodies trying to increase participation levels at young ages with a sense of entitlement as they enter their late teens early 20s even as a contribution factor.

I found it an absolutely incredible leap to link encouragement of participation in sport in a less pressurised environment to predatory sexual behaviour.

Things have never been more pressurised for young people. Far from creating a society where there "no losers", young people these days grow up with more pressure on them than ever before. Greater pressure to get good exam results, greater pressure at work, greater pressure in terms of finding an affordable place to live, pressure to look good, pressure to conform.

It's only a short leap from that to claiming that the abolition of corporal punishment in schools is to blame for a predatory sexual culture.

A straight forward link that there is a growing sense of entitlement from a very young age. I have 2 sons and a daughter and I attend lots of sporting, musical and dance events with them and the levels of expectations are very high. I agree with you on that and the pressure is very high. However, as they get older there is a greater expectation from them that they get everything their way and if they don't then there are problems. I dispute that there is any more pressure on my son of 19 then there was on me at 19. I see it at first hand. I believe in fact we just had better coping mechanisms.

Also I dispute that there is a 'rape culture' , there is an unreal expectation culture in terms of what sex and sexual relations are and a lot of that has got to do with the free availability of porn and lack of education through the home and schools about this. Of you have evidence of the rape culture I'm happy to read it and be proven wrong.

I disagree that a very young child needs to be placed in an ultra competitive environment. There's nothing wrong with encouraging all of them, at young ages, and I think it's a stretch to say that that builds a sense of entitlement. Kids know whether they win or lose, and rewarding them for trying their best is a worthy exercise in and of itself.

Once a child reaches u12 or u14 at the latest, that changes anyway, and there's a lot of lessons then about the sad side of losing, so I wouldn't worry that we are creating a massive problem at that age. I agree that it's important to learn about winning, losing, the rewards you get when you put something into it, and the way to deal with unfairness or bad luck. But I don't think that has to be at 6,7,8,9 and 10. At that age it's about participation, enjoyment, trying your best.
Youse are forgetting where BC1 is from :D
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 01:53:31 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 04, 2018, 01:50:17 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 01:47:45 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 01:34:18 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:59:32 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/application-to-lift-reporting-restrictions-on-belfast-rape-trial-to-be-heard-next-week-36773969.html

More mileage in this yet.
To what end? What restrictions were in place bar legal restrictions on naming the complainant?


It's what I said immediately after the trial. They're going to go after her, I'm sure of it. Especially with all the subsequent protests.

Who?

The media, as in fairness they dont give a shit about any of them

Given all the shite has went on around this I don't think it is a bad thing for the full facts to be requested, and I fail to see how doing so signifies the media going after her
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 01:56:15 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:50:53 PM
The media.  If reporting restrictions are lifted, I expect her to be publicly named, and then some pieces about who she is, her background etc. Then the 'unnamed friend' sources with some gossipy stuff. This application should be rejected.
They should all be allowed to get on with their lives. The have obviously seen there is plenty of traction on social media and want to make money whilst it's the current hot topic. Agree that it should be rejected - it's certainly not in anyone's interest in the short term (complainant and defendants) or long-term (if they go after her it may make it less likely for others to come forward) other than the meedja and those looking for salacious gossip.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 01:58:23 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 01:53:31 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 04, 2018, 01:50:17 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 01:47:45 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 01:34:18 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:59:32 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/application-to-lift-reporting-restrictions-on-belfast-rape-trial-to-be-heard-next-week-36773969.html

More mileage in this yet.
To what end? What restrictions were in place bar legal restrictions on naming the complainant?


It's what I said immediately after the trial. They're going to go after her, I'm sure of it. Especially with all the subsequent protests.

Who?

The media, as in fairness they dont give a shit about any of them

Given all the shite has went on around this I don't think it is a bad thing for the full facts to be requested, and I fail to see how doing so signifies the media going after her

I have a feeling this may be to do with other issues outside of the trial that were not related to the charges before the court. I suspect I know what it is about but without full knowledge I'm not putting it up here
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:59:01 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 01:58:23 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 01:53:31 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 04, 2018, 01:50:17 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 01:47:45 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 01:34:18 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:59:32 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/application-to-lift-reporting-restrictions-on-belfast-rape-trial-to-be-heard-next-week-36773969.html

More mileage in this yet.
To what end? What restrictions were in place bar legal restrictions on naming the complainant?


It's what I said immediately after the trial. They're going to go after her, I'm sure of it. Especially with all the subsequent protests.

Who?

The media, as in fairness they dont give a shit about any of them

Given all the shite has went on around this I don't think it is a bad thing for the full facts to be requested, and I fail to see how doing so signifies the media going after her

I have a feeling this may be to do with other issues outside of the trial that were not related to the charges before the court. I suspect I know what it is about but without full knowledge I'm not putting it up here

That's my suspicion too.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 01:59:52 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
If any of you think that the messages in this WhatsApp group are not reflective of lots of other non-Ulster rugby type 'lads' groups then you're very blind and innocent. The advent of technology has allowed men to brag and boast about their adolescent, boorish sex lives the way most groups of young men did over the years but now with a bit more spontaneous interaction and unfortunately worse language. This doesn't mean they are all sexual predators. It means they are assholes. And this notion of privilege is nothing to do with Ulster rugby and everything to do with modern 'millennial ' thinking. Freedom of communication, freedom of travel, excess alcohol and drugs, reasonable amount of surplus cash, and a level of expectation in terms of what the world owes them has seen the behaviour of young adults, men and women, change dramatically. Guess what though folks, you and I have helped create this phenomenon. Society has created them and concepts like 'no losers' in sport and every kid getting a medal from a very early age has meant that there are lowering levels of boundaries. Kids get what they want at whatever age they are and as a result when they get to young adult stage they have high expectations and low levels of tolerance. I see it in my own kids and it's a daily battle particularly when there's two opposing forces trying to instill a level of controls.

The rugby players should not have 'morality' clauses in their contracts. There should be no need for them but there is because of the way the world turns now. Control is being subjugated at a very young age by parenting through technology and lack of controls. I don't think that this is the only reason and certainly I would not suggest that the likes of PJ was left in front of a tv screen. Probably the complete opposite but in a world where peers show scant regards for the others in the world then the influence is always there. Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Although clearly honestly held and well thought out, this post appears to be entirely based on the notion that human behaviour now is worse than in the past, and also that this can be attributed to expecting more for less. I believe those are fallacies.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on April 04, 2018, 02:04:59 PM
Application to lift reporting restrictions on Belfast rape trial to be heard next week
An application by various media outlets to lift reporting restrictions on the Belfast rape trial will come before the trial judge next Monday

Eimear Cotter

April 4 2018 11:24 AM


AN APPLICATION by various media outlets to lift reporting restrictions on the Belfast rape trial will come before the trial judge next Monday.

A preliminary application on the matter was made before the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan, this morning.

Sir Morgan said the trial judge, Judge Patricia Smyth, was aware of the application and was available next week to consider it.

The Lord Chief Justice said he was aware of the argument that "news was perishable" and it was on that basis that the application would be dealt with expeditiously.

Last Wednesday, Irish and Ulster rugby stars Paddy Jackson (26) and Stuart Olding (25) were acquitted by a jury of eight men and three women of raping a then 19-year-old student at Jackson's home in June 2016.

Mr Jackson was also cleared of a charge of sexually assaulting the same women.

Both men had also said that the sexual activity was consensual.

Their friends Blane McIlroy (26) was cleared of exposure and Rory Harrison (25) was found not guilty of perverting the course of justice and withholding information. They too had also denied the charges.

The jury returned their verdict after three hours and 45 minutes of deliberations.

This morning, an application came before the High Court to lift reporting restrictions which were imposed during the course of the trial.

Sir Morgan said he was sitting in his capacity as a Crown Court judge. He said he was "not making any determination" on the application, and that it should properly be argued before the original trial judge, Judge Smyth.

He said Judge Smyth was available to hear the application on Monday.

Frank O'Donoghue QC, who represented Stuart Olding during the nine-week trial, said the application was originally due to be heard at the end of April.

Mr O'Donoghue said there were "real practical difficulties" with the application proceeding on Monday, as a number of the lawyers were out of the country.

He said he "did want to object" to the application by the media, but that he needed time to prepare his arguments.

He also said there was a need for "absolute clarity" on the effects on any orders.

Gerry Simpson QC, for the press, said he was conscious the application had come at an unusual time.

"It's now a week since the trial ended. It will be another week before this application is heard. I'm keen to keep pressing on with it", he said.

The Lord Chief Justice said he believed that "skeleton arguments" should be ready by the end of the week and he adjourned the application to Judge Smyth on Monday.


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/application-to-lift-reporting-restrictions-on-belfast-rape-trial-to-be-heard-next-week-36773969.html


This is the article.  The accused's right to anonymity was not something that was established during this trial and I don't think these applications would be concerned with that. She won't be named but the bit in bold tells me it's to do with other issues (those that BCB has alluded to).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 01:56:15 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:50:53 PM
The media.  If reporting restrictions are lifted, I expect her to be publicly named, and then some pieces about who she is, her background etc. Then the 'unnamed friend' sources with some gossipy stuff. This application should be rejected.
They should all be allowed to get on with their lives. The have obviously seen there is plenty of traction on social media and want to make money whilst it's the current hot topic. Agree that it should be rejected - it's certainly not in anyone's interest in the short term (complainant and defendants) or long-term (if they go after her it may make it less likely for others to come forward) other than the meedja and those looking for salacious gossip.

'They should all be allowed to get on with their lives'...Currently this is far from the case for the defendants - there may well be further relevant facts which would allow those involved to get on with their lives. Full disclosure is to be welcomed, especially given the trial by twitter.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on April 04, 2018, 02:06:52 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 01:56:15 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:50:53 PM
The media.  If reporting restrictions are lifted, I expect her to be publicly named, and then some pieces about who she is, her background etc. Then the 'unnamed friend' sources with some gossipy stuff. This application should be rejected.
They should all be allowed to get on with their lives. The have obviously seen there is plenty of traction on social media and want to make money whilst it's the current hot topic. Agree that it should be rejected - it's certainly not in anyone's interest in the short term (complainant and defendants) or long-term (if they go after her it may make it less likely for others to come forward) other than the meedja and those looking for salacious gossip.

'They should all be allowed to get on with their lives'...Currently this is far from the case for the defendants - there may well be further relevant facts which would allow those involved to get on with their lives. Full disclosure is to be welcomed, especially given the trial by twitter.

And someone (almost) named after a venereal disease on the GAABoard.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 01:23:05 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Rape culture exists among a huge proportion of men.

I'd like to see any arguments for why people think it doesn't.

Sorry but the burden is on you to prove that it does exist.

I see the following as aspects of rape culture.

Ignorance of or deliberate misunderstanding as to what constitutes rape, ie. the tropes about "if a woman doesn't scream, it can't be rape", which the defence QCs in the Belfast trial implied. We've actually had posters here who believed this, and not just the dregs who you'd expect to be ignorant but otherwise good posters who I would have thought this wouldn't have needed to be explained to. Implying or stating that spousal rape cannot exist, as George Hook did.

A belief that it's just fine to perform a sex act on a person who is asleep, and who by definition cannot give consent. On another widely read Irish forum there have been several posters claiming that this is just fine. It's sexual assault at best and outright rape at worst. There was a high profile court case in Ireland not very long ago where a man commited ten such rapes and was sentenced to no jail time whatsoever - it was subsequently appealed and he got 15 months.

A belief that a woman cannot withdraw consent at any point during sex. She can.

Deliberately and mendaciously twisting the verdict of a trial to make out that a jury has found a complainant's allegations of rape to be lies.

Humiliation - the "Love Belfast Sluts" meme Blane McIlroy sent around, the demands to publicly out the complainant. The sickening feasting on the Slane Girl video and the attempt to publicly out her.

A belief that a woman desperately asking a man to "at least use a condom" constitutes consent. It doesn't. Again, this was a line pushed by the defence QCs.

A belief that a woman entering a man's bedroom equals consent. There should always be a presumption of no consent until it's made clear consent exists.

A belief that "no" doesn't mean no. This has been relentlessly pushed through popular culture, movies etc.

Joking about rape.

Using the utterly bogus argument of "personal responsibility" to mitigate the heinous crime of rape. There is no such a thing as the responsibility of a person to not be the victim of a crime, only the responsibility of a person to not commit a crime.

A belief that women who wear certain clothes or get drunk are in any way at all responsible if they are raped. They aren't. There is no such a thing as a woman "asking for it".

Being influenced by porn that explicitly degrades women.

Referring to women as animals in language, ie. as a pig in a "spit roast", or a "dog" or a "cow" or a "bitch". Other terms such as "bird", "chick" or "filly" may be less ostensibly hostile but they still portray women as animals.

Referring to sex as something a man does to a woman, and in violent terms - "ruined her", "destroyed her", "pumped her", "smashed her," "ploughed her". So much of the language men use surrounding sex is based around violence.

Using deliberately degrading terms for women - "sluts", "whores", "brasses", "slags" etc., while referring to men as "legends", "top shaggers", "swordsmen" etc.

The assumption of male power and male primacy, the notion that what women want is "a real man" (never mind that most men who have this idea are pathetic, weak ignoramuses who have a clue what a real man is).

The assumption that female protest is crazy, irrelevant and illegitimate.

The denial that there is a problem with any of the above.

Subscribing to or engaging with any one of those notions is subscribing to and engaging with rape culture. Obviously the more elements one subscribes to, the more entwined with such a culture one is.

Such a culture is perpetuated, amazingly enough, by males - primarily, but by no means exclusively, younger males, who don't know a lot about about the real world.

Such a culture is by no means exclusive to alt-right-minded people, but it is a culture which is synonymous with alt-right thinking - the idea of the pick up artist movement that women are effectively robots there to be manipulated and "won" like trophies, the notion that a woman's place is in the home, that women should not do certain jobs or play certain sports.

The weird thing is that I find there is a big crossover between self proclaimed "law and order" types and those who subscribe to at least some elements of rape culture. Victims of rape or tend not to be uppermost in such people's minds, nor does the admission that there might be a problem in how young men think about consent, nor is light sentencing for rapists. Yet rape is the second most serious crime there is, after murder.

Also, I think you'll find a great deal of crossover between men who subscribe to any or all elements of rape culture and those who oppose the repeal of the 8th Amendment - another tool of control for men over women.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 02:09:21 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 01:59:52 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
If any of you think that the messages in this WhatsApp group are not reflective of lots of other non-Ulster rugby type 'lads' groups then you're very blind and innocent. The advent of technology has allowed men to brag and boast about their adolescent, boorish sex lives the way most groups of young men did over the years but now with a bit more spontaneous interaction and unfortunately worse language. This doesn't mean they are all sexual predators. It means they are assholes. And this notion of privilege is nothing to do with Ulster rugby and everything to do with modern 'millennial ' thinking. Freedom of communication, freedom of travel, excess alcohol and drugs, reasonable amount of surplus cash, and a level of expectation in terms of what the world owes them has seen the behaviour of young adults, men and women, change dramatically. Guess what though folks, you and I have helped create this phenomenon. Society has created them and concepts like 'no losers' in sport and every kid getting a medal from a very early age has meant that there are lowering levels of boundaries. Kids get what they want at whatever age they are and as a result when they get to young adult stage they have high expectations and low levels of tolerance. I see it in my own kids and it's a daily battle particularly when there's two opposing forces trying to instill a level of controls.

The rugby players should not have 'morality' clauses in their contracts. There should be no need for them but there is because of the way the world turns now. Control is being subjugated at a very young age by parenting through technology and lack of controls. I don't think that this is the only reason and certainly I would not suggest that the likes of PJ was left in front of a tv screen. Probably the complete opposite but in a world where peers show scant regards for the others in the world then the influence is always there. Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Although clearly honestly held and well thought out, this post appears to be entirely based on the notion that human behaviour now is worse than in the past, and also that this can be attributed to expecting more for less. I believe those are fallacies.

I did state in my first few lines that their behaviour is no different to the sexual bragging that has gone on for years, just more immediate. As a father of a 19 year old I see their behaviour patterns and compare them to my own. I did most of what they did but the over indulgence in alcohol and drugs is on another level.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 02:12:43 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 02:09:21 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 01:59:52 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
If any of you think that the messages in this WhatsApp group are not reflective of lots of other non-Ulster rugby type 'lads' groups then you're very blind and innocent. The advent of technology has allowed men to brag and boast about their adolescent, boorish sex lives the way most groups of young men did over the years but now with a bit more spontaneous interaction and unfortunately worse language. This doesn't mean they are all sexual predators. It means they are assholes. And this notion of privilege is nothing to do with Ulster rugby and everything to do with modern 'millennial ' thinking. Freedom of communication, freedom of travel, excess alcohol and drugs, reasonable amount of surplus cash, and a level of expectation in terms of what the world owes them has seen the behaviour of young adults, men and women, change dramatically. Guess what though folks, you and I have helped create this phenomenon. Society has created them and concepts like 'no losers' in sport and every kid getting a medal from a very early age has meant that there are lowering levels of boundaries. Kids get what they want at whatever age they are and as a result when they get to young adult stage they have high expectations and low levels of tolerance. I see it in my own kids and it's a daily battle particularly when there's two opposing forces trying to instill a level of controls.

The rugby players should not have 'morality' clauses in their contracts. There should be no need for them but there is because of the way the world turns now. Control is being subjugated at a very young age by parenting through technology and lack of controls. I don't think that this is the only reason and certainly I would not suggest that the likes of PJ was left in front of a tv screen. Probably the complete opposite but in a world where peers show scant regards for the others in the world then the influence is always there. Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Although clearly honestly held and well thought out, this post appears to be entirely based on the notion that human behaviour now is worse than in the past, and also that this can be attributed to expecting more for less. I believe those are fallacies.

I did state in my first few lines that their behaviour is no different to the sexual bragging that has gone on for years, just more immediate. As a father of a 19 year old I see their behaviour patterns and compare them to my own. I did most of what they did but the over indulgence in alcohol and drugs is on another level.

That's money. Have 15-20 year olds ever had as much money to spend?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 02:17:10 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 02:12:43 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 02:09:21 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 01:59:52 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
If any of you think that the messages in this WhatsApp group are not reflective of lots of other non-Ulster rugby type 'lads' groups then you're very blind and innocent. The advent of technology has allowed men to brag and boast about their adolescent, boorish sex lives the way most groups of young men did over the years but now with a bit more spontaneous interaction and unfortunately worse language. This doesn't mean they are all sexual predators. It means they are assholes. And this notion of privilege is nothing to do with Ulster rugby and everything to do with modern 'millennial ' thinking. Freedom of communication, freedom of travel, excess alcohol and drugs, reasonable amount of surplus cash, and a level of expectation in terms of what the world owes them has seen the behaviour of young adults, men and women, change dramatically. Guess what though folks, you and I have helped create this phenomenon. Society has created them and concepts like 'no losers' in sport and every kid getting a medal from a very early age has meant that there are lowering levels of boundaries. Kids get what they want at whatever age they are and as a result when they get to young adult stage they have high expectations and low levels of tolerance. I see it in my own kids and it's a daily battle particularly when there's two opposing forces trying to instill a level of controls.

The rugby players should not have 'morality' clauses in their contracts. There should be no need for them but there is because of the way the world turns now. Control is being subjugated at a very young age by parenting through technology and lack of controls. I don't think that this is the only reason and certainly I would not suggest that the likes of PJ was left in front of a tv screen. Probably the complete opposite but in a world where peers show scant regards for the others in the world then the influence is always there. Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Although clearly honestly held and well thought out, this post appears to be entirely based on the notion that human behaviour now is worse than in the past, and also that this can be attributed to expecting more for less. I believe those are fallacies.

I did state in my first few lines that their behaviour is no different to the sexual bragging that has gone on for years, just more immediate. As a father of a 19 year old I see their behaviour patterns and compare them to my own. I did most of what they did but the over indulgence in alcohol and drugs is on another level.

That's money. Have 15-20 year olds ever had as much money to spend?

Completely agree. It's unreal. Most have part time jobs and also alcohol seems very cheap comparatively speaking.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 02:19:21 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 02:09:21 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 01:59:52 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
If any of you think that the messages in this WhatsApp group are not reflective of lots of other non-Ulster rugby type 'lads' groups then you're very blind and innocent. The advent of technology has allowed men to brag and boast about their adolescent, boorish sex lives the way most groups of young men did over the years but now with a bit more spontaneous interaction and unfortunately worse language. This doesn't mean they are all sexual predators. It means they are assholes. And this notion of privilege is nothing to do with Ulster rugby and everything to do with modern 'millennial ' thinking. Freedom of communication, freedom of travel, excess alcohol and drugs, reasonable amount of surplus cash, and a level of expectation in terms of what the world owes them has seen the behaviour of young adults, men and women, change dramatically. Guess what though folks, you and I have helped create this phenomenon. Society has created them and concepts like 'no losers' in sport and every kid getting a medal from a very early age has meant that there are lowering levels of boundaries. Kids get what they want at whatever age they are and as a result when they get to young adult stage they have high expectations and low levels of tolerance. I see it in my own kids and it's a daily battle particularly when there's two opposing forces trying to instill a level of controls.

The rugby players should not have 'morality' clauses in their contracts. There should be no need for them but there is because of the way the world turns now. Control is being subjugated at a very young age by parenting through technology and lack of controls. I don't think that this is the only reason and certainly I would not suggest that the likes of PJ was left in front of a tv screen. Probably the complete opposite but in a world where peers show scant regards for the others in the world then the influence is always there. Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Although clearly honestly held and well thought out, this post appears to be entirely based on the notion that human behaviour now is worse than in the past, and also that this can be attributed to expecting more for less. I believe those are fallacies.

I did state in my first few lines that their behaviour is no different to the sexual bragging that has gone on for years, just more immediate. As a father of a 19 year old I see their behaviour patterns and compare them to my own. I did most of what they did but the over indulgence in alcohol and drugs is on another level.

I understand what you're saying, and I do think you're correctly identifying some trends which are likely to have a detrimental effect on behaviour, but it seems to me that you've over-reached by linking it to this. There also is potentially an element of seeking to link trends you're not comfortable or familiar with (medal for everyone) with negative behaviours, which may just be down to your bias against them.

Personally I think we generally behave a lot better toward each other now, and cases like this demonstrate that in a perverse way - in the past this wouldn't have been talked about, now its openly discussed, and very few don't agree their behaviour was horrendous. The focus on how women are treated, consent etc, can only be a good thing. Its a pity it took a case like this to further that cause, but its often the way.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:24:28 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:50:53 PM
The media.  If reporting restrictions are lifted, I expect her to be publicly named, and then some pieces about who she is, her background etc. Then the 'unnamed friend' sources with some gossipy stuff. This application should be rejected.
Complainants have lifelong anonymity under the law.

Frank O'Donoghue, Olding's QC, is to fight the application, so read into that what you will.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: screenexile on April 04, 2018, 02:25:28 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 01:58:23 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 01:53:31 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 04, 2018, 01:50:17 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 01:47:45 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 01:34:18 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:59:32 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/application-to-lift-reporting-restrictions-on-belfast-rape-trial-to-be-heard-next-week-36773969.html

More mileage in this yet.
To what end? What restrictions were in place bar legal restrictions on naming the complainant?


It's what I said immediately after the trial. They're going to go after her, I'm sure of it. Especially with all the subsequent protests.

Who?

The media, as in fairness they dont give a shit about any of them

Given all the shite has went on around this I don't think it is a bad thing for the full facts to be requested, and I fail to see how doing so signifies the media going after her

I have a feeling this may be to do with other issues outside of the trial that were not related to the charges before the court. I suspect I know what it is about but without full knowledge I'm not putting it up here

Can you give us a "hypothetical" idea of the kinds of reporting restrictions these might be?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 02:28:43 PM
Quote from: Franko on April 04, 2018, 01:24:57 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Rape culture exists among a huge proportion of men.

I'd like to see any arguments for why people think it doesn't.

Genuine question - I've seen this 'rape culture' soundbyte used hundreds of times in the past few weeks.  What do you mean by this? How do you define it?

I think it's a poor use of terminology for what I believe it's meant to mean.

No one encourages of believes it's a good thing as AZ pointed out.

What I think the argument is against is a culture where rape and sexual violence towards women is not really understood or taken seriously. Where the benefit of the doubt is very much against the person making the complaint or the victim. Where pretty disgusting comments and text messages are shrugged off as "that's just what lads do".....it's just bravado, they don't really mean it etc.

There are important and serious discussions that need to take place regarding issues linked to this trial but I guess here isn't the time or place. Brushing it under the carpet and pretending things are grand is part of this culture that needs to change though.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: easytiger95 on April 04, 2018, 02:31:22 PM
The Second Captains did a really good episode dealing with all of these issues this week - it was members podcast but they have released it on the public feed, well worth listening to.

One thing I would say BCB1 doesn't mention in his post, but undoubtedly was mentioned on this thread before, is pornography. Whilst to a certain degree I would agree with haranguerer and AZ that there is nothing new under the sun, the easy availability of pornography is a game changer for human sexual relations.

Purely anecdotally, I think that we have seen a regression in behaviour with regard to sexism/misogyny since the rise of the internet and free porn, especially in young men. 

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 02:35:56 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on April 04, 2018, 02:31:22 PM
The Second Captains did a really good episode dealing with all of these issues this week - it was members podcast but they have released it on the public feed, well worth listening to.

One thing I would say BCB1 doesn't mention in his post, but undoubtedly was mentioned on this thread before, is pornography. Whilst to a certain degree I would agree with haranguerer and AZ that there is nothing new under the sun, the easy availability of pornography is a game changer for human sexual relations.

Purely anecdotally, I think that we have seen a regression in behaviour with regard to sexism/misogyny since the rise of the internet and free porn, especially in young men.

Agree with all of that. I mentioned the podcast earlier. It was excellent.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 02:37:49 PM
Although that seems like an easy and logical link to make, I disagree with it completely. I think the move toward equality and respect has accelerated if anything.

I wouldn't dispute that easy access to porn can cause problems, but is it not likely to also alleviate some other problems? Are people in general not a lot more open about sex now, which should be a good thing?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 02:39:25 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 02:37:49 PM
Although that seems like an easy and logical link to make, I disagree with it completely. I think the move toward equality and respect has accelerated if anything.

I wouldn't dispute that easy access to porn can cause problems, but is it not likely to also alleviate some other problems? Are people in general not a lot more open about sex now, which should be a good thing?

Doubt it has made any improvement in the area of consent.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 02:40:49 PM
And expectations. I worry young people have normalised stuff that girls especially are not comfortable with, and if they don't conform to it, they are treated as if there's something wrong with them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 04, 2018, 02:41:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:24:28 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 01:50:53 PM
The media.  If reporting restrictions are lifted, I expect her to be publicly named, and then some pieces about who she is, her background etc. Then the 'unnamed friend' sources with some gossipy stuff. This application should be rejected.
Complainants have lifelong anonymity under the law.

Frank O'Donoghue, Olding's QC, is to fight the application, so read into that what you will.

He said he "did want to object" to the application by the media, but that he needed time to prepare his arguments.

He also said there was a need for "absolute clarity" on the effects on any orders.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on April 04, 2018, 02:45:30 PM
One thing that I think is prevalent that also contributes to this culture of elevating young men of school age onto pedestals for sporting achievements on the field.
Schools cup rugby in places like Methody, BRA etc, etc and getting onto the team elevates these lads as almost legends and with that comes the trappings of the jersey pullers on a  night out and all that goes with it beyond that.
The complainant knew that only too well by the correspondence with her friend the day after.
Taking the issue of consent out of it, the girls are pieces of meat, conquests to be bragged about.

For schools cup rugby substitute in McCrory cup, is there any difference in how these young men are lauded in an unhealthy way IMO.

Add in the easy access to porn and it's a recipe for disaster.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 02:46:36 PM
Re consent, why not? There was long a general societal narrative that sex was something men tried to get and women tried to withhold - it seems to me that is where the consent issues we now have largely originate from. The vast majority of porn depicts both genders enjoying sex - a scenario which is a lot more conducive to positive attitudes to sex and consent as far as I can see.

Re expectations, I can certainly see that AZ. Which brings us back to the need to have, and ensuring all parties are comfortable having,honest conversations about sex and consent
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 02:59:05 PM
Listen to the podcast......people who know a lot more than most of us having an intelligent conversation.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 03:00:59 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 01:23:05 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Rape culture exists among a huge proportion of men.

I'd like to see any arguments for why people think it doesn't.

Sorry but the burden is on you to prove that it does exist.

I see the following as aspects of rape culture.

Ignorance of or deliberate misunderstanding as to what constitutes rape, ie. the tropes about "if a woman doesn't scream, it can't be rape", which the defence QCs in the Belfast trial implied. We've actually had posters here who believed this, and not just the dregs who you'd expect to be ignorant but otherwise good posters who I would have thought this wouldn't have needed to be explained to. Implying or stating that spousal rape cannot exist, as George Hook did.

A belief that it's just fine to perform a sex act on a person who is asleep, and who by definition cannot give consent. On another widely read Irish forum there have been several posters claiming that this is just fine. It's sexual assault at best and outright rape at worst. There was a high profile court case in Ireland not very long ago where a man commited ten such rapes and was sentenced to no jail time whatsoever - it was subsequently appealed and he got 15 months.

A belief that a woman cannot withdraw consent at any point during sex. She can.

Deliberately and mendaciously twisting the verdict of a trial to make out that a jury has found a complainant's allegations of rape to be lies.

Humiliation - the "Love Belfast Sluts" meme Blane McIlroy sent around, the demands to publicly out the complainant. The sickening feasting on the Slane Girl video and the attempt to publicly out her.

A belief that a woman desperately asking a man to "at least use a condom" constitutes consent. It doesn't. Again, this was a line pushed by the defence QCs.

A belief that a woman entering a man's bedroom equals consent. There should always be a presumption of no consent until it's made clear consent exists.

A belief that "no" doesn't mean no. This has been relentlessly pushed through popular culture, movies etc.

Joking about rape.

Using the utterly bogus argument of "personal responsibility" to mitigate the heinous crime of rape. There is no such a thing as the responsibility of a person to not be the victim of a crime, only the responsibility of a person to not commit a crime.

A belief that women who wear certain clothes or get drunk are in any way at all responsible if they are raped. They aren't. There is no such a thing as a woman "asking for it".

Being influenced by porn that explicitly degrades women.

Referring to women as animals in language, ie. as a pig in a "spit roast", or a "dog" or a "cow" or a "bitch". Other terms such as "bird", "chick" or "filly" may be less ostensibly hostile but they still portray women as animals.

Referring to sex as something a man does to a woman, and in violent terms - "ruined her", "destroyed her", "pumped her", "smashed her," "ploughed her". So much of the language men use surrounding sex is based around violence.

Using deliberately degrading terms for women - "sluts", "whores", "brasses", "slags" etc., while referring to men as "legends", "top shaggers", "swordsmen" etc.

The assumption of male power and male primacy, the notion that what women want is "a real man" (never mind that most men who have this idea are pathetic, weak ignoramuses who have a clue what a real man is).

The assumption that female protest is crazy, irrelevant and illegitimate.

The denial that there is a problem with any of the above.

Subscribing to or engaging with any one of those notions is subscribing to and engaging with rape culture. Obviously the more elements one subscribes to, the more entwined with such a culture one is.

Such a culture is perpetuated, amazingly enough, by males - primarily, but by no means exclusively, younger males, who don't know a lot about about the real world.

Such a culture is by no means exclusive to alt-right-minded people, but it is a culture which is synonymous with alt-right thinking - the idea of the pick up artist movement that women are effectively robots there to be manipulated and "won" like trophies, the notion that a woman's place is in the home, that women should not do certain jobs or play certain sports.

The weird thing is that I find there is a big crossover between self proclaimed "law and order" types and those who subscribe to at least some elements of rape culture. Victims of rape or tend not to be uppermost in such people's minds, nor does the admission that there might be a problem in how young men think about consent, nor is light sentencing for rapists. Yet rape is the second most serious crime there is, after murder.

Also, I think you'll find a great deal of crossover between men who subscribe to any or all elements of rape culture and those who oppose the repeal of the 8th Amendment - another tool of control for men over women.

Thought provoking stuff there Sid, not sure I would agree it's a huge portion of men but it's not a small portion either but hard to disagree with much of what you say if any.


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 03:06:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 01:23:05 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Rape culture exists among a huge proportion of men.

I'd like to see any arguments for why people think it doesn't.

Sorry but the burden is on you to prove that it does exist.

I see the following as aspects of rape culture.

Ignorance of or deliberate misunderstanding as to what constitutes rape, ie. the tropes about "if a woman doesn't scream, it can't be rape", which the defence QCs in the Belfast trial implied. We've actually had posters here who believed this, and not just the dregs who you'd expect to be ignorant but otherwise good posters who I would have thought this wouldn't have needed to be explained to. Implying or stating that spousal rape cannot exist, as George Hook did.

A belief that it's just fine to perform a sex act on a person who is asleep, and who by definition cannot give consent. On another widely read Irish forum there have been several posters claiming that this is just fine. It's sexual assault at best and outright rape at worst. There was a high profile court case in Ireland not very long ago where a man commited ten such rapes and was sentenced to no jail time whatsoever - it was subsequently appealed and he got 15 months.

A belief that a woman cannot withdraw consent at any point during sex. She can.

Deliberately and mendaciously twisting the verdict of a trial to make out that a jury has found a complainant's allegations of rape to be lies.

Humiliation - the "Love Belfast Sluts" meme Blane McIlroy sent around, the demands to publicly out the complainant. The sickening feasting on the Slane Girl video and the attempt to publicly out her.

A belief that a woman desperately asking a man to "at least use a condom" constitutes consent. It doesn't. Again, this was a line pushed by the defence QCs.

A belief that a woman entering a man's bedroom equals consent. There should always be a presumption of no consent until it's made clear consent exists.

A belief that "no" doesn't mean no. This has been relentlessly pushed through popular culture, movies etc.

Joking about rape.

Using the utterly bogus argument of "personal responsibility" to mitigate the heinous crime of rape. There is no such a thing as the responsibility of a person to not be the victim of a crime, only the responsibility of a person to not commit a crime.

A belief that women who wear certain clothes or get drunk are in any way at all responsible if they are raped. They aren't. There is no such a thing as a woman "asking for it".

Being influenced by porn that explicitly degrades women.

Referring to women as animals in language, ie. as a pig in a "spit roast", or a "dog" or a "cow" or a "bitch". Other terms such as "bird", "chick" or "filly" may be less ostensibly hostile but they still portray women as animals.

Referring to sex as something a man does to a woman, and in violent terms - "ruined her", "destroyed her", "pumped her", "smashed her," "ploughed her". So much of the language men use surrounding sex is based around violence.

Using deliberately degrading terms for women - "sluts", "whores", "brasses", "slags" etc., while referring to men as "legends", "top shaggers", "swordsmen" etc.

The assumption of male power and male primacy, the notion that what women want is "a real man" (never mind that most men who have this idea are pathetic, weak ignoramuses who have a clue what a real man is).

The assumption that female protest is crazy, irrelevant and illegitimate.

The denial that there is a problem with any of the above.

Subscribing to or engaging with any one of those notions is subscribing to and engaging with rape culture. Obviously the more elements one subscribes to, the more entwined with such a culture one is.

Such a culture is perpetuated, amazingly enough, by males - primarily, but by no means exclusively, younger males, who don't know a lot about about the real world.

Such a culture is by no means exclusive to alt-right-minded people, but it is a culture which is synonymous with alt-right thinking - the idea of the pick up artist movement that women are effectively robots there to be manipulated and "won" like trophies, the notion that a woman's place is in the home, that women should not do certain jobs or play certain sports.

The weird thing is that I find there is a big crossover between self proclaimed "law and order" types and those who subscribe to at least some elements of rape culture. Victims of rape or tend not to be uppermost in such people's minds, nor does the admission that there might be a problem in how young men think about consent, nor is light sentencing for rapists. Yet rape is the second most serious crime there is, after murder.

Also, I think you'll find a great deal of crossover between men who subscribe to any or all elements of rape culture and those who oppose the repeal of the 8th Amendment - another tool of control for men over women.

Good post.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 03:17:17 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 03:00:59 PM

Thought provoking stuff there Sid, not sure I would agree it's a huge portion of men but it's not a small portion either but hard to disagree with much of what you say if any.
I'd be surprised if many posters here don't currently or haven't in the past subscribed to at least some of those beliefs or engage(d) in some of those behaviours.

Certainly I know I have.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 03:19:01 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 03:17:17 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 03:00:59 PM

Thought provoking stuff there Sid, not sure I would agree it's a huge portion of men but it's not a small portion either but hard to disagree with much of what you say if any.
I'd be surprised if many posters here don't currently or haven't in the past subscribed to at least some of those beliefs or engage(d) in some of those behaviours.

Certainly I know I have.

Yep I know I have too. Hard not to be reflective reading through it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 03:20:12 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 03:00:59 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 01:23:05 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Rape culture exists among a huge proportion of men.

I'd like to see any arguments for why people think it doesn't.

Sorry but the burden is on you to prove that it does exist.

I see the following as aspects of rape culture.

Ignorance of or deliberate misunderstanding as to what constitutes rape, ie. the tropes about "if a woman doesn't scream, it can't be rape", which the defence QCs in the Belfast trial implied. We've actually had posters here who believed this, and not just the dregs who you'd expect to be ignorant but otherwise good posters who I would have thought this wouldn't have needed to be explained to. Implying or stating that spousal rape cannot exist, as George Hook did.

A belief that it's just fine to perform a sex act on a person who is asleep, and who by definition cannot give consent. On another widely read Irish forum there have been several posters claiming that this is just fine. It's sexual assault at best and outright rape at worst. There was a high profile court case in Ireland not very long ago where a man commited ten such rapes and was sentenced to no jail time whatsoever - it was subsequently appealed and he got 15 months.

A belief that a woman cannot withdraw consent at any point during sex. She can.

Deliberately and mendaciously twisting the verdict of a trial to make out that a jury has found a complainant's allegations of rape to be lies.

Humiliation - the "Love Belfast Sluts" meme Blane McIlroy sent around, the demands to publicly out the complainant. The sickening feasting on the Slane Girl video and the attempt to publicly out her.

A belief that a woman desperately asking a man to "at least use a condom" constitutes consent. It doesn't. Again, this was a line pushed by the defence QCs.

A belief that a woman entering a man's bedroom equals consent. There should always be a presumption of no consent until it's made clear consent exists.

A belief that "no" doesn't mean no. This has been relentlessly pushed through popular culture, movies etc.

Joking about rape.

Using the utterly bogus argument of "personal responsibility" to mitigate the heinous crime of rape. There is no such a thing as the responsibility of a person to not be the victim of a crime, only the responsibility of a person to not commit a crime.

A belief that women who wear certain clothes or get drunk are in any way at all responsible if they are raped. They aren't. There is no such a thing as a woman "asking for it".

Being influenced by porn that explicitly degrades women.

Referring to women as animals in language, ie. as a pig in a "spit roast", or a "dog" or a "cow" or a "bitch". Other terms such as "bird", "chick" or "filly" may be less ostensibly hostile but they still portray women as animals.

Referring to sex as something a man does to a woman, and in violent terms - "ruined her", "destroyed her", "pumped her", "smashed her," "ploughed her". So much of the language men use surrounding sex is based around violence.

Using deliberately degrading terms for women - "sluts", "whores", "brasses", "slags" etc., while referring to men as "legends", "top shaggers", "swordsmen" etc.

The assumption of male power and male primacy, the notion that what women want is "a real man" (never mind that most men who have this idea are pathetic, weak ignoramuses who have a clue what a real man is).

The assumption that female protest is crazy, irrelevant and illegitimate.

The denial that there is a problem with any of the above.

Subscribing to or engaging with any one of those notions is subscribing to and engaging with rape culture. Obviously the more elements one subscribes to, the more entwined with such a culture one is.

Such a culture is perpetuated, amazingly enough, by males - primarily, but by no means exclusively, younger males, who don't know a lot about about the real world.

Such a culture is by no means exclusive to alt-right-minded people, but it is a culture which is synonymous with alt-right thinking - the idea of the pick up artist movement that women are effectively robots there to be manipulated and "won" like trophies, the notion that a woman's place is in the home, that women should not do certain jobs or play certain sports.

The weird thing is that I find there is a big crossover between self proclaimed "law and order" types and those who subscribe to at least some elements of rape culture. Victims of rape or tend not to be uppermost in such people's minds, nor does the admission that there might be a problem in how young men think about consent, nor is light sentencing for rapists. Yet rape is the second most serious crime there is, after murder.

Also, I think you'll find a great deal of crossover between men who subscribe to any or all elements of rape culture and those who oppose the repeal of the 8th Amendment - another tool of control for men over women.

Thought provoking stuff there Sid, not sure I would agree it's a huge portion of men but it's not a small portion either but hard to disagree with much of what you say if any.

It is thought provoking and I'd agree that most of us have thought the same way in some circumstances. I'm not sure it makes a 'rape culture ' though. It's a culture of disrespect more than what you suggest.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 03:25:17 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 03:19:01 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 03:17:17 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 03:00:59 PM

Thought provoking stuff there Sid, not sure I would agree it's a huge portion of men but it's not a small portion either but hard to disagree with much of what you say if any.
I'd be surprised if many posters here don't currently or haven't in the past subscribed to at least some of those beliefs or engage(d) in some of those behaviours.

Certainly I know I have.

Yep I know I have too. Hard not to be reflective reading through it.

Sadly must admit I have at times in the past also. I'd hope never to repeat them.

As I mentioned in my post and BCB mentions also I think the term "rape culture" is inaccurate or inappropriate but it's certainly a culture of disrespect and inequality. I know lots of guys who simply do not and will never see women as equal. I only realised this about some lads I know a long time in recent times....it seems the poor jokes we made were somehow actually true for them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 03:27:21 PM
That's what I'd suggest too bcb. But to be honest I think anyone who doesn't understand No means No, and who thinks performing sex acts on a sleeping woman, or who thinks that marital rape is not a thing, like domestic violence, is hardly reflective of a culture. I can't believe those beliefs are widespread enough to be called a 'culture'.

The lack of respect in the language used, the expectations and behaviours, even entirely consensual, is probably more of a culture than any 'rape' culture.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 03:29:02 PM
A rape culture suggests a culture which tolerates rape. That doesn't apply to our culture, even if you wish to split it by gender.

The list is food for thought, and raises some deplorable behaviours - it is not however, by any stretch of the imagination, evidence of a rape culture.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 04, 2018, 03:35:06 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 03:06:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 04, 2018, 01:23:05 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 04, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
Jackson and the rest involved here are not reflective of a 'rape' culture. They are reflective of a culture where the levels of respect that people have for each other is diminishing day on day. This is actually reflected very candidly through this thread where people very quickly took diametrically opposed sides and didn't allow the case to develop and woe betide anyone who aopposed their views as they were ridiculed and belittled. This is the way of this board now, this is the way of the world now.

Rape culture exists among a huge proportion of men.

I'd like to see any arguments for why people think it doesn't.

Sorry but the burden is on you to prove that it does exist.

I see the following as aspects of rape culture.

Ignorance of or deliberate misunderstanding as to what constitutes rape, ie. the tropes about "if a woman doesn't scream, it can't be rape", which the defence QCs in the Belfast trial implied. We've actually had posters here who believed this, and not just the dregs who you'd expect to be ignorant but otherwise good posters who I would have thought this wouldn't have needed to be explained to. Implying or stating that spousal rape cannot exist, as George Hook did.

A belief that it's just fine to perform a sex act on a person who is asleep, and who by definition cannot give consent. On another widely read Irish forum there have been several posters claiming that this is just fine. It's sexual assault at best and outright rape at worst. There was a high profile court case in Ireland not very long ago where a man commited ten such rapes and was sentenced to no jail time whatsoever - it was subsequently appealed and he got 15 months.

A belief that a woman cannot withdraw consent at any point during sex. She can.

Deliberately and mendaciously twisting the verdict of a trial to make out that a jury has found a complainant's allegations of rape to be lies.

Humiliation - the "Love Belfast Sluts" meme Blane McIlroy sent around, the demands to publicly out the complainant. The sickening feasting on the Slane Girl video and the attempt to publicly out her.

A belief that a woman desperately asking a man to "at least use a condom" constitutes consent. It doesn't. Again, this was a line pushed by the defence QCs.

A belief that a woman entering a man's bedroom equals consent. There should always be a presumption of no consent until it's made clear consent exists.

A belief that "no" doesn't mean no. This has been relentlessly pushed through popular culture, movies etc.

Joking about rape.

Using the utterly bogus argument of "personal responsibility" to mitigate the heinous crime of rape. There is no such a thing as the responsibility of a person to not be the victim of a crime, only the responsibility of a person to not commit a crime.

A belief that women who wear certain clothes or get drunk are in any way at all responsible if they are raped. They aren't. There is no such a thing as a woman "asking for it".

Being influenced by porn that explicitly degrades women.

Referring to women as animals in language, ie. as a pig in a "spit roast", or a "dog" or a "cow" or a "bitch". Other terms such as "bird", "chick" or "filly" may be less ostensibly hostile but they still portray women as animals.

Referring to sex as something a man does to a woman, and in violent terms - "ruined her", "destroyed her", "pumped her", "smashed her," "ploughed her". So much of the language men use surrounding sex is based around violence.

Using deliberately degrading terms for women - "sluts", "whores", "brasses", "slags" etc., while referring to men as "legends", "top shaggers", "swordsmen" etc.

The assumption of male power and male primacy, the notion that what women want is "a real man" (never mind that most men who have this idea are pathetic, weak ignoramuses who have a clue what a real man is).

The assumption that female protest is crazy, irrelevant and illegitimate.

The denial that there is a problem with any of the above.

Subscribing to or engaging with any one of those notions is subscribing to and engaging with rape culture. Obviously the more elements one subscribes to, the more entwined with such a culture one is.

Such a culture is perpetuated, amazingly enough, by males - primarily, but by no means exclusively, younger males, who don't know a lot about about the real world.

Such a culture is by no means exclusive to alt-right-minded people, but it is a culture which is synonymous with alt-right thinking - the idea of the pick up artist movement that women are effectively robots there to be manipulated and "won" like trophies, the notion that a woman's place is in the home, that women should not do certain jobs or play certain sports.

The weird thing is that I find there is a big crossover between self proclaimed "law and order" types and those who subscribe to at least some elements of rape culture. Victims of rape or tend not to be uppermost in such people's minds, nor does the admission that there might be a problem in how young men think about consent, nor is light sentencing for rapists. Yet rape is the second most serious crime there is, after murder.

Also, I think you'll find a great deal of crossover between men who subscribe to any or all elements of rape culture and those who oppose the repeal of the 8th Amendment - another tool of control for men over women.

Good post.

The amount of right thinking males do not think like that, there has been neanderthal's who will always be like that, but its a very small minority who would stand to all of those points..

As for the posters on here that subscribe to those points I think you'll find in the main they don't.. they may have a slight variation on them but to claim that a person is in denial if he/she doesnt agree with all of those points in all of their entirety is daft..

There is no rape culture, there is no acceptence of rape buy anyone, by the same token anyone that takes somebody to court for a rape allegation/charge needs to prove she was raped, and what is the best way to to do that? If someone made an allegation against you how would you go about that? would you defend yourself or just accept it?

Also Ive heard a woman say she would ruin a person and another said she was shagged that hard she couldnt walk for a week!! women also talk about the size of dicks, believe it and how good they are with it!! As for making out she was telling lies, I think you'll find there were some lies by all involved.. this was already highlighted throughout the case
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 03:49:15 PM
Indeed. I posted the one on boards.ie.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 03:51:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 03, 2018, 05:55:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 03, 2018, 05:17:17 PM
I find it very, ahem, "interesting" that so many men deny there is such a thing as rape culture.

Who denies this?
Ahem

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 04, 2018, 03:35:06 PM

There is no rape culture, there is no acceptence of rape buy anyone,

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 03:55:20 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 03:52:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 03:49:15 PM
Indeed. I posted the one on boards.ie.
So why were you using a different handle to your normal one then? The staff and admins there don't take too kindly to people having multiple accounts.
As far as I know this isn't a forum handle inquisition thread.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 03:58:33 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 03:57:52 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 03:55:20 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 03:52:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 03:49:15 PM
Indeed. I posted the one on boards.ie.
So why were you using a different handle to your normal one then? The staff and admins there don't take too kindly to people having multiple accounts.
As far as I know this isn't a forum handle inquisition thread.
Neither was it's original intention to talk about "rape culture" which wouldn't have raised it's head had guilty verdicts in the case in question been given. But no thread ever goes off-topic...

How can you think this is off topic? Seriously?  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 04:05:23 PM
Strange too that Bummer thinks there wouldn't have been a verdict about rape culture had there been guilty verdicts.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 04:12:58 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 03:57:52 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 03:55:20 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 03:52:37 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 03:49:15 PM
Indeed. I posted the one on boards.ie.
So why were you using a different handle to your normal one then? The staff and admins there don't take too kindly to people having multiple accounts.
As far as I know this isn't a forum handle inquisition thread.
Neither was it's original intention to talk about "rape culture" which wouldn't have raised it's head had guilty verdicts in the case in question been given. But no thread ever goes off-topic...

Walked yourself into this one, eh?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on April 04, 2018, 04:21:01 PM
There is a huge "disrespect to women" culture among men talking to men they're very friendly with. Some of it is malicious, most of it is just bravado or "fun" and not actually meant. Most involved would be hugely embarrassed if "caught" by a woman they know saying or texting this stuff. It's wrong and should be stopped, and maybe akin to our drinking culture it has been regarded as acceptable (among a too large group of men) for far too long.

I don't know if this is growing or not. In my experience, its been this way for a long time, not getting better or worse. But maybe it is worse among young adults. But people saying "it's time to call a halt to this" are right.

Open disrespect to women exists also, in a much less sizeable group of men. I think the number of men who engage in this is getting less all the time. And I think this means that those who do it openly get highlighted more, it's finally become taboo, which is a good thing, of course.

To equate any of the above to "rape culture" is absolute nonsense. And those who do that are ever bit as bad as the neanderthals who openly disrespect women.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: easytiger95 on April 04, 2018, 04:43:41 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 03:27:21 PM
That's what I'd suggest too bcb. But to be honest I think anyone who doesn't understand No means No, and who thinks performing sex acts on a sleeping woman, or who thinks that marital rape is not a thing, like domestic violence, is hardly reflective of a culture. I can't believe those beliefs are widespread enough to be called a 'culture'.

The lack of respect in the language used, the expectations and behaviours, even entirely consensual, is probably more of a culture than any 'rape' culture.
I think we are all getting hung up on the label "rape culture". I think we need to define what is a culture before looking at what that culture represents. For me, a culture is an environment or atmosphere that permeates language and behaviour. Whilst we have laws banning rape and courts to pursue those who are accused, those are constitutional and legal institutions, representing democratic or social norms and mores (the women's suffragette movement was an explicitly political process). They are not cultural norms or mores.

For instance, if you ask 100 lads on this board (or any other) should tax evaders be prosecuted, to a man they would probably say yes. That is a democratic and social norm - for our society to function there must be a presumption of equality before the law, and a presumption that all are willing to contribute to the society.

However, ask the same 100 if they were willing to do a nixer for you, a large number of them would say, ah sure why wouldn't I? That is cultural, the sideways glance at authority and an appreciation for the cute hoor. And there are good historical reasons for that.

Just because, as a society, we have designated certain acts to be illegal, does not mean that a culture cannot exist that subliminally encourages those acts. As anyone who can remember the atmosphere of corruption and sleaze that permeated Irish political life in the 80s, 90s and 00s would know, laws are aspirations, not definitive statements of what we are as a society - if they were, no none would ever have to be prosecuted because no one would be breaking laws.

I'm 42 now, and I would say my generation were the last to be able to have a completely offline life up to our early 20s, but were also the first, really, to deal with concepts like political correctness, the possible consequences of promiscuity (I remember the AIDS scare looming large over my teens), the changing place of women and minorities in our society. Which is not to say there was no feminism before the 90s, but as far we were concerned, the battles had been fought, equality was the way forward, and the question was settled.

Fast forward to now - as most have said, and I am willing to admit, I have objectified and belittled women in my past - mostly through ignorance and obliviousness (sure what are they complaining about, aren't we all equal now anyway?). But I cannot remember referring to women in the terms that we have seen, not just through this trial, but throughout our society. These are violent, dehumanising terms and it scares me to think that they are bandied about like that. I think there is a big link from porn to misogyny. Haranguerer was saying earlier that porn depicts both men and women enjoying sex - I don't think it could be further from the truth.

Porn is a power dynamic - the person whose fantasy it is holds the power. The woman's role is always performative - either the Madonna or the whore, dominant or submissive, participant or victim - she exists only in the gaze of the man and for the man's pleasure. She has no agency in the fantasy or scenario. She is being used, and increasingly it seems, violently. (I'm also sure that there is porn made for women by women, but it is nowhere near the pervasive influence that the traditional porn industry is.)

But if that is a bit esoteric for you, how about we remember Richard Keys and "did you smash it"? Or David Cameron and his "calm down dear"? Or the fact that men were actually surprised at the relevations of #metoo but every woman I know merely shook their heads and said it happens all the time? Or the fact that in RTE and the BBC, and in most industries, women have to suffer all manner of slight and abuse, but still can't get paid the same as men for doing the same job, a gap that is only getting worse?

We may not have a culture that says "rape is fine". But we do have a culture that says women are worth less, know less and are paid less than men, that still objectifies them everyday sexually, but now, perhaps worse than the 70s and 80s, instead of being honest about our chauvinism, we insist that we are all equal, and can they not have a sense of humour about things. And I think that is a regression from where we were when I was growing up.

And if we can't admit that such a culture as described above makes the abuse, even the rape of women, more likely, and if we prefer to argue about labels like "rape culture", than I can only see things deteriorating from here.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 04:47:56 PM
Hung up on the label? It can't be both ways. The term can't be introduced, and when people raise eyebrows, then go 'don't get hung up on the term'. If you (not you personally, or sid or anyone else here) don't mean 'culture' then don't say it.

As for the rest of the post, I agree with most/all of it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Farrandeelin on April 04, 2018, 04:49:22 PM
Fantastic post easytiger.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hound on April 04, 2018, 04:54:12 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on April 04, 2018, 04:43:41 PM

We may not have a culture that says "rape is fine". But we do have a culture that says women are worth less, know less and are paid less than men, that still objectifies them everyday sexually, but now, perhaps worse than the 70s and 80s, instead of being honest about our chauvinism, we insist that we are all equal, and can they not have a sense of humour about things. And I think that is a regression from where we were when I was growing up.

And if we can't admit that such a culture as described above makes the abuse, even the rape of women, more likely, and if we prefer to argue about labels like "rape culture", than I can only see things deteriorating from here.

Is that true or an exaggeration? In what jobs are men paid more than women for doing exactly the same as a woman?
I've worked in Dublin city centre for 20 years and that's not my experience (although not saying it doesn't exist, just I haven't come across it among my peers). More women graduates been taken on in the financial sector than male graduates. Although maybe you're talking about women missing out on promotions because of time spent on maternity leave? That's happening alright, although maybe less than before.

In some countries maternity leave is split between men and women in whatever proportion the couple agree. That would be a good idea over here.


Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: passedit on April 04, 2018, 04:55:17 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on April 04, 2018, 04:43:41 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 03:27:21 PM
That's what I'd suggest too bcb. But to be honest I think anyone who doesn't understand No means No, and who thinks performing sex acts on a sleeping woman, or who thinks that marital rape is not a thing, like domestic violence, is hardly reflective of a culture. I can't believe those beliefs are widespread enough to be called a 'culture'.

The lack of respect in the language used, the expectations and behaviours, even entirely consensual, is probably more of a culture than any 'rape' culture.
I think we are all getting hung up on the label "rape culture". I think we need to define what is a culture before looking at what that culture represents. For me, a culture is an environment or atmosphere that permeates language and behaviour. Whilst we have laws banning rape and courts to pursue those who are accused, those are constitutional and legal institutions, representing democratic or social norms and mores (the women's suffragette movement was an explicitly political process). They are not cultural norms or mores.

For instance, if you ask 100 lads on this board (or any other) should tax evaders be prosecuted, to a man they would probably say yes. That is a democratic and social norm - for our society to function there must be a presumption of equality before the law, and a presumption that all are willing to contribute to the society.

However, ask the same 100 if they were willing to do a nixer for you, a large number of them would say, ah sure why wouldn't I? That is cultural, the sideways glance at authority and an appreciation for the cute hoor. And there are good historical reasons for that.

Just because, as a society, we have designated certain acts to be illegal, does not mean that a culture cannot exist that subliminally encourages those acts. As anyone who can remember the atmosphere of corruption and sleaze that permeated Irish political life in the 80s, 90s and 00s would know, laws are aspirations, not definitive statements of what we are as a society - if they were, no none would ever have to be prosecuted because no one would be breaking laws.

I'm 42 now, and I would say my generation were the last to be able to have a completely offline life up to our early 20s, but were also the first, really, to deal with concepts like political correctness, the possible consequences of promiscuity (I remember the AIDS scare looming large over my teens), the changing place of women and minorities in our society. Which is not to say there was no feminism before the 90s, but as far we were concerned, the battles had been fought, equality was the way forward, and the question was settled.

Fast forward to now - as most have said, and I am willing to admit, I have objectified and belittled women in my past - mostly through ignorance and obliviousness (sure what are they complaining about, aren't we all equal now anyway?). But I cannot remember referring to women in the terms that we have seen, not just through this trial, but throughout our society. These are violent, dehumanising terms and it scares me to think that they are bandied about like that. I think there is a big link from porn to misogyny. Haranguerer was saying earlier that porn depicts both men and women enjoying sex - I don't think it could be further from the truth.

Porn is a power dynamic - the person whose fantasy it is holds the power. The woman's role is always performative - either the Madonna or the whore, dominant or submissive, participant or victim - she exists only in the gaze of the man and for the man's pleasure. She has no agency in the fantasy or scenario. She is being used, and increasingly it seems, violently. (I'm also sure that there is porn made for women by women, but it is nowhere near the pervasive influence that the traditional porn industry is.)

But if that is a bit esoteric for you, how about we remember Richard Keys and "did you smash it"? Or David Cameron and his "calm down dear"? Or the fact that men were actually surprised at the relevations of #metoo but every woman I know merely shook their heads and said it happens all the time? Or the fact that in RTE and the BBC, and in most industries, women have to suffer all manner of slight and abuse, but still can't get paid the same as men for doing the same job, a gap that is only getting worse?

We may not have a culture that says "rape is fine". But we do have a culture that says women are worth less, know less and are paid less than men, that still objectifies them everyday sexually, but now, perhaps worse than the 70s and 80s, instead of being honest about our chauvinism, we insist that we are all equal, and can they not have a sense of humour about things. And I think that is a regression from where we were when I was growing up.

And if we can't admit that such a culture as described above makes the abuse, even the rape of women, more likely, and if we prefer to argue about labels like "rape culture", than I can only see things deteriorating from here.



Put more eloquently than I was about to. I'd add that these same attitudes apply to domestic violence which has the same issues
I.e There's too much of it, It's greatly underreported, underprosecuted and underpunished (by verdict and sentence).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 04:56:04 PM
So a culture then of not treating women as equals rather than a rape culture? Saying that in the first place would have saved people a lot of time writing (or copying and pasting) and reading long articles. I think we'd all agree on that front but not on a "rape culture" within Ireland or the UK.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 04:56:49 PM
Quote from: passedit on April 04, 2018, 04:55:17 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on April 04, 2018, 04:43:41 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 03:27:21 PM
That's what I'd suggest too bcb. But to be honest I think anyone who doesn't understand No means No, and who thinks performing sex acts on a sleeping woman, or who thinks that marital rape is not a thing, like domestic violence, is hardly reflective of a culture. I can't believe those beliefs are widespread enough to be called a 'culture'.

The lack of respect in the language used, the expectations and behaviours, even entirely consensual, is probably more of a culture than any 'rape' culture.
I think we are all getting hung up on the label "rape culture". I think we need to define what is a culture before looking at what that culture represents. For me, a culture is an environment or atmosphere that permeates language and behaviour. Whilst we have laws banning rape and courts to pursue those who are accused, those are constitutional and legal institutions, representing democratic or social norms and mores (the women's suffragette movement was an explicitly political process). They are not cultural norms or mores.

For instance, if you ask 100 lads on this board (or any other) should tax evaders be prosecuted, to a man they would probably say yes. That is a democratic and social norm - for our society to function there must be a presumption of equality before the law, and a presumption that all are willing to contribute to the society.

However, ask the same 100 if they were willing to do a nixer for you, a large number of them would say, ah sure why wouldn't I? That is cultural, the sideways glance at authority and an appreciation for the cute hoor. And there are good historical reasons for that.

Just because, as a society, we have designated certain acts to be illegal, does not mean that a culture cannot exist that subliminally encourages those acts. As anyone who can remember the atmosphere of corruption and sleaze that permeated Irish political life in the 80s, 90s and 00s would know, laws are aspirations, not definitive statements of what we are as a society - if they were, no none would ever have to be prosecuted because no one would be breaking laws.

I'm 42 now, and I would say my generation were the last to be able to have a completely offline life up to our early 20s, but were also the first, really, to deal with concepts like political correctness, the possible consequences of promiscuity (I remember the AIDS scare looming large over my teens), the changing place of women and minorities in our society. Which is not to say there was no feminism before the 90s, but as far we were concerned, the battles had been fought, equality was the way forward, and the question was settled.

Fast forward to now - as most have said, and I am willing to admit, I have objectified and belittled women in my past - mostly through ignorance and obliviousness (sure what are they complaining about, aren't we all equal now anyway?). But I cannot remember referring to women in the terms that we have seen, not just through this trial, but throughout our society. These are violent, dehumanising terms and it scares me to think that they are bandied about like that. I think there is a big link from porn to misogyny. Haranguerer was saying earlier that porn depicts both men and women enjoying sex - I don't think it could be further from the truth.

Porn is a power dynamic - the person whose fantasy it is holds the power. The woman's role is always performative - either the Madonna or the whore, dominant or submissive, participant or victim - she exists only in the gaze of the man and for the man's pleasure. She has no agency in the fantasy or scenario. She is being used, and increasingly it seems, violently. (I'm also sure that there is porn made for women by women, but it is nowhere near the pervasive influence that the traditional porn industry is.)

But if that is a bit esoteric for you, how about we remember Richard Keys and "did you smash it"? Or David Cameron and his "calm down dear"? Or the fact that men were actually surprised at the relevations of #metoo but every woman I know merely shook their heads and said it happens all the time? Or the fact that in RTE and the BBC, and in most industries, women have to suffer all manner of slight and abuse, but still can't get paid the same as men for doing the same job, a gap that is only getting worse?

We may not have a culture that says "rape is fine". But we do have a culture that says women are worth less, know less and are paid less than men, that still objectifies them everyday sexually, but now, perhaps worse than the 70s and 80s, instead of being honest about our chauvinism, we insist that we are all equal, and can they not have a sense of humour about things. And I think that is a regression from where we were when I was growing up.

And if we can't admit that such a culture as described above makes the abuse, even the rape of women, more likely, and if we prefer to argue about labels like "rape culture", than I can only see things deteriorating from here.



Put more eloquently than I was about to. I'd add that these same attitudes apply to domestic violence which has the same issues
I.e There's too much of it, It's greatly underreported, underprosecuted and underpunished (by verdict and sentence).

+1. Excellent post.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on April 04, 2018, 05:09:36 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on April 04, 2018, 04:43:41 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 04, 2018, 03:27:21 PM
That's what I'd suggest too bcb. But to be honest I think anyone who doesn't understand No means No, and who thinks performing sex acts on a sleeping woman, or who thinks that marital rape is not a thing, like domestic violence, is hardly reflective of a culture. I can't believe those beliefs are widespread enough to be called a 'culture'.

The lack of respect in the language used, the expectations and behaviours, even entirely consensual, is probably more of a culture than any 'rape' culture.
I think we are all getting hung up on the label "rape culture". I think we need to define what is a culture before looking at what that culture represents. For me, a culture is an environment or atmosphere that permeates language and behaviour. Whilst we have laws banning rape and courts to pursue those who are accused, those are constitutional and legal institutions, representing democratic or social norms and mores (the women's suffragette movement was an explicitly political process). They are not cultural norms or mores.

For instance, if you ask 100 lads on this board (or any other) should tax evaders be prosecuted, to a man they would probably say yes. That is a democratic and social norm - for our society to function there must be a presumption of equality before the law, and a presumption that all are willing to contribute to the society.

However, ask the same 100 if they were willing to do a nixer for you, a large number of them would say, ah sure why wouldn't I? That is cultural, the sideways glance at authority and an appreciation for the cute hoor. And there are good historical reasons for that.

Just because, as a society, we have designated certain acts to be illegal, does not mean that a culture cannot exist that subliminally encourages those acts. As anyone who can remember the atmosphere of corruption and sleaze that permeated Irish political life in the 80s, 90s and 00s would know, laws are aspirations, not definitive statements of what we are as a society - if they were, no none would ever have to be prosecuted because no one would be breaking laws.

I'm 42 now, and I would say my generation were the last to be able to have a completely offline life up to our early 20s, but were also the first, really, to deal with concepts like political correctness, the possible consequences of promiscuity (I remember the AIDS scare looming large over my teens), the changing place of women and minorities in our society. Which is not to say there was no feminism before the 90s, but as far we were concerned, the battles had been fought, equality was the way forward, and the question was settled.

Fast forward to now - as most have said, and I am willing to admit, I have objectified and belittled women in my past - mostly through ignorance and obliviousness (sure what are they complaining about, aren't we all equal now anyway?). But I cannot remember referring to women in the terms that we have seen, not just through this trial, but throughout our society. These are violent, dehumanising terms and it scares me to think that they are bandied about like that. I think there is a big link from porn to misogyny. Haranguerer was saying earlier that porn depicts both men and women enjoying sex - I don't think it could be further from the truth.

Porn is a power dynamic - the person whose fantasy it is holds the power. The woman's role is always performative - either the Madonna or the whore, dominant or submissive, participant or victim - she exists only in the gaze of the man and for the man's pleasure. She has no agency in the fantasy or scenario. She is being used, and increasingly it seems, violently. (I'm also sure that there is porn made for women by women, but it is nowhere near the pervasive influence that the traditional porn industry is.)

But if that is a bit esoteric for you, how about we remember Richard Keys and "did you smash it"? Or David Cameron and his "calm down dear"? Or the fact that men were actually surprised at the relevations of #metoo but every woman I know merely shook their heads and said it happens all the time? Or the fact that in RTE and the BBC, and in most industries, women have to suffer all manner of slight and abuse, but still can't get paid the same as men for doing the same job, a gap that is only getting worse?

We may not have a culture that says "rape is fine". But we do have a culture that says women are worth less, know less and are paid less than men, that still objectifies them everyday sexually, but now, perhaps worse than the 70s and 80s, instead of being honest about our chauvinism, we insist that we are all equal, and can they not have a sense of humour about things. And I think that is a regression from where we were when I was growing up.

And if we can't admit that such a culture as described above makes the abuse, even the rape of women, more likely, and if we prefer to argue about labels like "rape culture", than I can only see things deteriorating from here.

Very good post and I'd agree with most of it.  I've a couple of issues with it though.

First of all, your analogy doesn't work.  If your mate says to you "I did a few little cash jobs there and dodged the revenue", I'd venture that you'd not give it a second thought.  If he says, "I raped a girl and got away with it"... well.

The term "rape culture" isn't a fit for the attitudes you have described.  You can't say that someone ascribes to/is part of a "rape culture" because he said "Calm down dear".  It's hyperbolic and it turns people away from examining the real issues because they take one look at the language, think "I don't have that problem" and continue on their way.  "Misogyny culture", "disrespect culture" I could agree with.

But like I said at the start, good post.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Bord na Mona man on April 04, 2018, 05:16:56 PM
The points about the treatment of women are well made and I think these are often done unconsciously. It is no harm for males to take stock of some of their behaviours and how they affect women.

But to try and brand all this stuff a "rape culture" is dingbat stuff.
So lads fighting outside the chipper are part of a "killing culture" because it makes the possibly of someone dying greater.
People playing hurling are partaking in a "finger breaking culture" because the possibilities of this happening are vastly increased as opposed to playing snooker. Rugby a "neck breaking culture" etc. etc.

Unfortunately the shock jock tactics do the cause no favour. Just my thought, but I'm probably misogynistic, woman hater.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 06:31:43 PM
The semantic arguments the last two posts have fixated on are just incredible.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: easytiger95 on April 04, 2018, 06:39:34 PM
My point is that the label as it stands - ie rape culture- is so politicised that it becomes the problem. How i would describe it is a culture that in its most toxic manifestations faciltates rape. And even that description is not nuanced enough.
Arguments about the label, in my opinion, distracts us from confronting the continuing pathologies in our society around this- harassment, pay inequality, sexual violence etc- which are real and continuous problems for women. I think most of us are in agreement about the existence of those problems.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on April 04, 2018, 06:41:10 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 06:31:43 PM
The semantic arguments the last two posts have fixated on are just incredible.

Yawn.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 06:42:41 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 04, 2018, 05:16:56 PM
The points about the treatment of women are well made and I think these are often done unconsciously. It is no harm for males to take stock of some of their behaviours and how they affect women.

But to try and brand all this stuff a "rape culture" is dingbat stuff.
So lads fighting outside the chipper are part of a "killing culture" because it makes the possibly of someone dying greater.
People playing hurling are partaking in a "finger breaking culture" because the possibilities of this happening are vastly increased as opposed to playing snooker. Rugby a "neck breaking culture" etc. etc.

Unfortunately the shock jock tactics do the cause no favour. Just my thought, but I'm probably misogynistic, woman hater.

Was there/is there a culture of sexual abuse and rape in the Catholic Church? Not just the abuse itself, but the institutional closing of ranks -  the moving around of known abusers, the lies, the cover ups, the refusal of many ordinary churchgoers to believe there was a problem?

Bearing in mind that the vast majority of priests were not actual abusers, like.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 06:58:22 PM
Quote from: passedit on April 04, 2018, 04:55:17 PM

Put more eloquently than I was about to. I'd add that these same attitudes apply to domestic violence which has the same issues
I.e There's too much of it, It's greatly underreported, underprosecuted and underpunished (by verdict and sentence).

All these toxic cultures that either existed or still exist are cultures of occasionally spoken, but far more often unspoken power and control in which the real truth lay/lies hidden because so many of their victims were/are scared into silence.







Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on April 04, 2018, 07:01:59 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on April 04, 2018, 06:39:34 PM
My point is that the label as it stands - ie rape culture- is so politicised that it becomes the problem. How i would describe it is a culture that in its most toxic manifestations faciltates rape. And even that description is not nuanced enough.
Arguments about the label, in my opinion, distracts us from confronting the continuing pathologies in our society around this- harassment, pay inequality, sexual violence etc- which are real and continuous problems for women. I think most of us are in agreement about the existence of those problems.

Absolutely.  But my point was that the label needs to be dropped.  The news is full of stories about the #metoo, #timesup, the gender pay gap etc.  These are all genuine issues and I don't think any reasonable person would have a problem with that.  Some of the posters on this forum, like yourself, sid and seanie have made valid and well thought out points describing other attitudes that need addressed and have caused posters (including myself) to point the mirror at themselves and really think about behaviours.

But when you try to cover these with a hyperbolic umbrella term like "rape culture" the whole message is lost.  Like I say, when 99% of people hear the term "rape culture", they think "I don't have an issue like that" and they switch off to the actual message.  (Or worse, they think that the person delivering the message is some sort of crackpot and actively try to ignore them.)

As an example, read back through this forum.  Rape culture had been mentioned many times but it wasn't until someone actually sat down and outlined the issues properly that anyone took notice.  (That, and the fact that there was actually a crackpot doing a lot of the shouting).
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Bord na Mona man on April 04, 2018, 07:14:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 06:31:43 PM
The semantic arguments the last two posts have fixated on are just incredible.
Semantics are a step too far for simple binary thinkers like yourself.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 07:20:17 PM
Those uncomfortable discussing an issue regularly try to distract from it and minimise it. I have little confidence that either of you are acting in good faith and your simplistic attacks on posters do little to suggest I'm wrong.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on April 04, 2018, 07:21:19 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 06:42:41 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 04, 2018, 05:16:56 PM
The points about the treatment of women are well made and I think these are often done unconsciously. It is no harm for males to take stock of some of their behaviours and how they affect women.

But to try and brand all this stuff a "rape culture" is dingbat stuff.
So lads fighting outside the chipper are part of a "killing culture" because it makes the possibly of someone dying greater.
People playing hurling are partaking in a "finger breaking culture" because the possibilities of this happening are vastly increased as opposed to playing snooker. Rugby a "neck breaking culture" etc. etc.

Unfortunately the shock jock tactics do the cause no favour. Just my thought, but I'm probably misogynistic, woman hater.

Was there/is there a culture of sexual abuse and rape in the Catholic Church? Not just the abuse itself, but the institutional closing of ranks -  the moving around of known abusers, the lies, the cover ups, the refusal of many ordinary churchgoers to believe there was a problem?

Bearing in mind that the vast majority of priests were not actual abusers, like.

No.  But I would agree that there was a culture of silence towards it that facilitated it occurring.  It's an important difference.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Bord na Mona man on April 04, 2018, 07:25:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 06:42:41 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 04, 2018, 05:16:56 PM
The points about the treatment of women are well made and I think these are often done unconsciously. It is no harm for males to take stock of some of their behaviours and how they affect women.

But to try and brand all this stuff a "rape culture" is dingbat stuff.
So lads fighting outside the chipper are part of a "killing culture" because it makes the possibly of someone dying greater.
People playing hurling are partaking in a "finger breaking culture" because the possibilities of this happening are vastly increased as opposed to playing snooker. Rugby a "neck breaking culture" etc. etc.

Unfortunately the shock jock tactics do the cause no favour. Just my thought, but I'm probably misogynistic, woman hater.

Was there/is there a culture of sexual abuse and rape in the Catholic Church?
Yes, anyone who partook in the sexual abuse and other appalling acts, or facilitated in any way was part of what could be described as a rape culture.

But, the act of joining the priesthood where male primacy is enshrined is part of a rape culture going by your previous posts.

I don't see it, but that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: themac_23 on April 04, 2018, 07:26:47 PM
I tell ya what, i know im not the only one on here who is part of WhatsApp groups or have been where fellas post stuff about women and see it as a laugh. To call it a rape culture because someone uses a few terms is a bit of a stretch for me. Lets not get this as a Rugby problem, we would be having the exact same conversation had this been an Irish league footballer or a GAA County or Club player it is just society now, hand on heart, if my mother, sister or partner seen some of the WhatsApp groups I've been in id def have a red face. Do i agree with all the things? absolutely not, is it the same conversations fellas have on a night out or in a changing room? Absolutely. What i find astonishing is the amount of people on here on their high horse who have never said a throw away comment, laughed at an inappropriate joke or been involved in a fellas WhatsApp group. What i would hope after this, if i had a lad who was a young sportsman is watch what you say, even though Craig Gilroy is 100% nothing to do with ANY part of this court case, he is dragged through the mud for a throwaway WhatsApp message, when you hit send its there and not just one 1 phone but on all the phones of those in the group
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: TabClear on April 04, 2018, 07:37:34 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on April 04, 2018, 07:26:47 PM
I tell ya what, i know im not the only one on here who is part of WhatsApp groups or have been where fellas post stuff about women and see it as a laugh. To call it a rape culture because someone uses a few terms is a bit of a stretch for me. Lets not get this as a Rugby problem, we would be having the exact same conversation had this been an Irish league footballer or a GAA County or Club player it is just society now, hand on heart, if my mother, sister or partner seen some of the WhatsApp groups I've been in id def have a red face. Do i agree with all the things? absolutely not, is it the same conversations fellas have on a night out or in a changing room? Absolutely. What i find astonishing is the amount of people on here on their high horse who have never said a throw away comment, laughed at an inappropriate joke or been involved in a fellas WhatsApp group. What i would hope after this, if i had a lad who was a young sportsman is watch what you say, even though Craig Gilroy is 100% nothing to do with ANY part of this court case, he is dragged through the mud for a throwaway WhatsApp message, when you hit send its there and not just one 1 phone but on all the phones of those in the group

Bang on. A bit of perspective needs to be applied here
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: imtommygunn on April 04, 2018, 08:11:22 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 07:20:17 PM
Those uncomfortable discussing an issue regularly try to distract from it and minimise it. I have little confidence that either of you are acting in good faith and your simplistic attacks on posters do little to suggest I'm wrong.

What discussion have you added to this thread? You aren't a person who has made any effort to discuss anything whenit hasn't fully followed your rhetoric.

You seem to have adopted the attitude that you will keep people right and correct them when they don't subscribe to everything you think ???
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 08:44:02 PM
A lot of words to say very little.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 08:44:02 PM
A lot of words to say very little.
That could be your strapline.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 08:49:19 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 08:44:02 PM
A lot of words to say very little.
That could be your strapline.
Your's could be 'rape culture don't exsist, lol'..
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on April 04, 2018, 08:49:52 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 07:20:17 PM
Those uncomfortable discussing an issue regularly try to distract from it and minimise it. I have little confidence that either of you are acting in good faith and your simplistic attacks on posters do little to suggest I'm wrong.

Yawn.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 04, 2018, 09:12:00 PM
In respect of the claimsabout  the QC's trail comments, I think they are being unfairly judged here out of context. The comment about middle class girls was in response to the complainant saying she didn't know anything about the others in the house or how'd they would react if she called out. The complainant also I'm told by someone who was there made some comment about being middle class and not being used to going back to people's houses for sex after nights out. Now I can't find that reported anywhere but if it was said it would explain the comments to some degree.

Also It doesn't read to me that the QC's ever suggested that because the complainant said at least use a condom or because she hadn't screamed it meant she was consenting. Rather it seemed they were highlighting all the evidence in the case that tended to support their contention that she had consented in other ways and/or that the defendants had a reasonable belief in that consent. 
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on April 04, 2018, 09:20:59 PM
In awe at the quality of Fionntamhnach's post above. Best I've read on this board for a long time.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on April 04, 2018, 10:04:14 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 04, 2018, 09:12:00 PM
In respect of the claimsabout  the QC's trail comments, I think they are being unfairly judged here out of context. The comment about middle class girls was in response to the complainant saying she didn't know anything about the others in the house or how'd they would react if she called out. The complainant also I'm told by someone who was there made some comment about being middle class and not being used to going back to people's houses for sex after nights out. Now I can't find that reported anywhere but if it was said it would explain the comments to some degree.

Also It doesn't read to me that the QC's ever suggested that because the complainant said at least use a condom or because she hadn't screamed it meant she was consenting. Rather it seemed they were highlighting all the evidence in the case that tended to support their contention that she had consented in other ways and/or that the defendants had a reasonable belief in that consent.
The voice of reason as always. Great points David. The middle class girls comment makes a lot more sense in that context and it's another reminder of how unfair it is for us to jump to conclusions(I know I've jumped to a few myself) based on the snippets we see.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on April 04, 2018, 10:13:19 PM
An excellent analysis by Fionntamhnach
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Rudi on April 04, 2018, 10:36:37 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 04, 2018, 09:20:59 PM
In awe at the quality of Fionntamhnach's post above. Best I've read on this board for a long time.

+1 probably one of the best.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on April 04, 2018, 10:40:51 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 04, 2018, 04:24:52 AM
I firmly believe that there is not a rape culture anywhere but in Ulster Rugby there is a shag competition.


Quote from: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
it takes something special to call suspending a player with a morals clause caught saying shît like that a witch hunt. IRFU can't be soft on players if it wants to maintain some integrity.

The sheer din of odious stupidity from Orior hasn't stopped I see. Rape culture doesn't exist. Righto, kid.

You are sad.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Farrandeelin on April 04, 2018, 11:21:27 PM
Quote from: Rudi on April 04, 2018, 10:36:37 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 04, 2018, 09:20:59 PM
In awe at the quality of Fionntamhnach's post above. Best I've read on this board for a long time.

+1 probably one of the best.

Agree with this too.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Main Street on April 04, 2018, 11:24:10 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 04, 2018, 09:12:00 PM
In respect of the claimsabout  the QC's trail comments, I think they are being unfairly judged here out of context. The comment about middle class girls was in response to the complainant saying she didn't know anything about the others in the house or how'd they would react if she called out. The complainant also I'm told by someone who was there made some comment about being middle class and not being used to going back to people's houses for sex after nights out. Now I can't find that reported anywhere but if it was said it would explain the comments to some degree.


You need  a direct quote from the complainant about middle class, hearsay has no value.
Quote
Also It doesn't read to me that the QC's ever suggested that because the complainant said at least use a condom or because she hadn't screamed it meant she was consenting. Rather it seemed they were highlighting all the evidence in the case that tended to support their contention that she had consented in other ways and/or that the defendants had a reasonable belief in that consent.
If you take on board the defence's carefully choreographed picture of events, then you can perceive singular events such as the condom reference as good evidence of consent, you can even perceive the lack of screaming as good evidence of consent (however irrational),  one can also perceive the lady's type of underwear as evidence of being partial to consent, I am not persuaded by such claims. There just was not enough evidence to support her contention that consent was not given, but  that is not to say definitively that the woman consented to all that "carry on".
The evidence to support the defence's argument that she did give consent is weak and has little real value. Perhaps the defence's argument just gains a vastly exaggerated value because there is an absence of quality neutral evidence to support the claimant's contention of no consent.
Perhaps that's the context why people get persuaded by such weak 'evidence' of consent,  such as  type of underwear and  that she didn't scream.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 04, 2018, 11:25:28 PM
Quote from: themac_23 on April 04, 2018, 07:26:47 PM
I tell ya what, i know im not the only one on here who is part of WhatsApp groups or have been where fellas post stuff about women and see it as a laugh. To call it a rape culture because someone uses a few terms is a bit of a stretch for me. Lets not get this as a Rugby problem, we would be having the exact same conversation had this been an Irish league footballer or a GAA County or Club player it is just society now, hand on heart, if my mother, sister or partner seen some of the WhatsApp groups I've been in id def have a red face. Do i agree with all the things? absolutely not, is it the same conversations fellas have on a night out or in a changing room? Absolutely. What i find astonishing is the amount of people on here on their high horse who have never said a throw away comment, laughed at an inappropriate joke or been involved in a fellas WhatsApp group. What i would hope after this, if i had a lad who was a young sportsman is watch what you say, even though Craig Gilroy is 100% nothing to do with ANY part of this court case, he is dragged through the mud for a throwaway WhatsApp message, when you hit send its there and not just one 1 phone but on all the phones of those in the group

Almost as astonishing as someone making up that there are many people on here who have stated they haven't done so.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: bennydorano on April 04, 2018, 11:33:56 PM
Jesus, Rape Culture is a new one on me. I could see it being appropriately  applied to the likes of the Asian men in Bradford who groomed children and actually did Rape them.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 04, 2018, 11:35:57 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 04, 2018, 11:24:10 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 04, 2018, 09:12:00 PM
In respect of the claimsabout  the QC's trail comments, I think they are being unfairly judged here out of context. The comment about middle class girls was in response to the complainant saying she didn't know anything about the others in the house or how'd they would react if she called out. The complainant also I'm told by someone who was there made some comment about being middle class and not being used to going back to people's houses for sex after nights out. Now I can't find that reported anywhere but if it was said it would explain the comments to some degree.


You need  a direct quote from the complainant about middle class, hearsay has no value.
Quote
Also It doesn't read to me that the QC's ever suggested that because the complainant said at least use a condom or because she hadn't screamed it meant she was consenting. Rather it seemed they were highlighting all the evidence in the case that tended to support their contention that she had consented in other ways and/or that the defendants had a reasonable belief in that consent.
If you take on board the defence's carefully choreographed picture of events, then you can perceive singular events such as the condom reference as good evidence of consent, you can even perceive the lack of screaming as good evidence of consent (however irrational),  one can also perceive the lady's type of underwear as evidence of being partial to consent, I am not persuaded by such claims. There just was not enough evidence to support her contention that consent was not given, but  that is not to say definitively that the woman consented to all that "carry on".
The evidence to support the defence's argument that she did give consent is weak and has little real value. Perhaps the defence's argument just gains a vastly exaggerated value because there is an absence of quality neutral evidence to support the claimant's contention of no consent.
Perhaps that's the context why people get persuaded by such weak 'evidence' of consent,  such as  type of underwear and  that she didn't scream.
Lots of perhaps in that post, let's just say that the jury heard everything and gave a verdict on what they heard in the correct context and were absolutely clear of their decision. You like the rest didnt
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 04, 2018, 11:38:25 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 04, 2018, 11:24:10 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 04, 2018, 09:12:00 PM
In respect of the claimsabout  the QC's trail comments, I think they are being unfairly judged here out of context. The comment about middle class girls was in response to the complainant saying she didn't know anything about the others in the house or how'd they would react if she called out. The complainant also I'm told by someone who was there made some comment about being middle class and not being used to going back to people's houses for sex after nights out. Now I can't find that reported anywhere but if it was said it would explain the comments to some degree.


You need  a direct quote from the complainant about middle class, hearsay has no value.
Quote

Fair enough although given that by that definition all we have is hearsay posted on twitter I'll await a full transcript of absolutely every piece of evidence before I condemn the man out of context.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Asal Mor on April 05, 2018, 12:37:02 AM
Quote from: Main Street on April 04, 2018, 11:24:10 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 04, 2018, 09:12:00 PM
In respect of the claimsabout  the QC's trail comments, I think they are being unfairly judged here out of context. The comment about middle class girls was in response to the complainant saying she didn't know anything about the others in the house or how'd they would react if she called out. The complainant also I'm told by someone who was there made some comment about being middle class and not being used to going back to people's houses for sex after nights out. Now I can't find that reported anywhere but if it was said it would explain the comments to some degree.


You need  a direct quote from the complainant about middle class, hearsay has no value.
Quote
Also It doesn't read to me that the QC's ever suggested that because the complainant said at least use a condom or because she hadn't screamed it meant she was consenting. Rather it seemed they were highlighting all the evidence in the case that tended to support their contention that she had consented in other ways and/or that the defendants had a reasonable belief in that consent.
If you take on board the defence's carefully choreographed picture of events, then you can perceive singular events such as the condom reference as good evidence of consent, you can even perceive the lack of screaming as good evidence of consent (however irrational),  one can also perceive the lady's type of underwear as evidence of being partial to consent, I am not persuaded by such claims. There just was not enough evidence to support her contention that consent was not given, but  that is not to say definitively that the woman consented to all that "carry on".
The evidence to support the defence's argument that she did give consent is weak and has little real value. Perhaps the defence's argument just gains a vastly exaggerated value because there is an absence of quality neutral evidence to support the claimant's contention of no consent.
Perhaps that's the context why people get persuaded by such weak 'evidence' of consent,  such as  type of underwear and  that she didn't scream.

Has anyone said this?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 05, 2018, 01:00:33 AM
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/hashtag-justice-is-no-justice-at-all-1.3449271?mode=amp

Not entirely correct about certain minor aspects but a good article on summing up my feelings.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orior on April 05, 2018, 05:28:40 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 04, 2018, 09:20:59 PM
In awe at the quality of Fionntamhnach's post above. Best I've read on this board for a long time.

Agreed
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: seafoid on April 05, 2018, 06:29:21 AM

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/full-reporting-of-ulster-rape-trial-could-undermine-the-verdict-36776307.html

A lawyer for one of the rugby players acquitted in the Belfast rape trial has said he has concerns the lifting of reporting restrictions could "undermine the verdict of not guilty".

Frank O'Donoghue QC, who represented Stuart Olding (25) during the nine-week trial, said there was a "general concern" the not guilty verdicts could be undermined.

The lawyer said: "On occasion it (reporting) has been anything but respectful of the verdict."

An application by various media outlets to lift reporting restrictions imposed by Judge Patricia Smyth is expected to come before her next Monday.



Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Frank_The_Tank on April 05, 2018, 09:15:59 AM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2018, 06:29:21 AM

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/full-reporting-of-ulster-rape-trial-could-undermine-the-verdict-36776307.html

A lawyer for one of the rugby players acquitted in the Belfast rape trial has said he has concerns the lifting of reporting restrictions could "undermine the verdict of not guilty".

Frank O'Donoghue QC, who represented Stuart Olding (25) during the nine-week trial, said there was a "general concern" the not guilty verdicts could be undermined.

The lawyer said: "On occasion it (reporting) has been anything but respectful of the verdict."

An application by various media outlets to lift reporting restrictions imposed by Judge Patricia Smyth is expected to come before her next Monday.

Will it all be on public record anyway in a transcript of the trial that goes online?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on April 05, 2018, 09:38:07 AM
Quote from: Orior on April 05, 2018, 05:28:40 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on April 04, 2018, 09:20:59 PM
In awe at the quality of Fionntamhnach's post above. Best I've read on this board for a long time.

Agreed

Indeed a good riposte to Sid, but will fall on deaf ears of those that don't want to hear as usual.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on April 05, 2018, 09:43:50 AM
Quote from: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 08:49:19 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2018, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 04, 2018, 08:44:02 PM
A lot of words to say very little.
That could be your strapline.
Your's could be 'rape culture don't exsist, lol'..

Yes, if he wanted to show everyone that his spelling and grammar is similar to that of an uneducated fool.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on April 05, 2018, 10:54:06 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43654109

Paddy would need to get back till the training shortly...
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on April 05, 2018, 11:06:04 AM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on April 05, 2018, 10:54:06 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43654109

Paddy would need to get back till the training shortly...

How f**king stupid do you have to be to think that was a good idea?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: blewuporstuffed on April 05, 2018, 11:22:19 AM
Quote from: gallsman on April 05, 2018, 11:06:04 AM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on April 05, 2018, 10:54:06 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43654109

Paddy would need to get back till the training shortly...

How f**king stupid do you have to be to think that was a good idea?

This could really be in the WTF? thread.
Morons
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on April 05, 2018, 11:31:30 AM
think the two guys were overheard saying "lets get this gaaboard thread to the 300 page mark"...

wait till the feminists hear about this......
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2018, 11:36:22 AM
Jesus, some people are easy offended
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: AZOffaly on April 05, 2018, 11:37:11 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2018, 11:36:22 AM
Jesus, some people are easy offended

I'm not offended, I just think they're donkeys.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: johnnycool on April 05, 2018, 11:41:28 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 05, 2018, 11:37:11 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2018, 11:36:22 AM
Jesus, some people are easy offended

I'm not offended, I just think they're donkeys.

It is a tad insensitive and ill timed considering they're "spit roasting" a cup.

Dickheads alright.

Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: magpie seanie on April 05, 2018, 11:44:49 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 05, 2018, 11:37:11 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2018, 11:36:22 AM
Jesus, some people are easy offended

I'm not offended, I just think they're donkeys.

What are you on about AZ? That's just the way lads go on. You must have had a very sheltered life if you don't realise this. Get with it.  ::)
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: longballin on April 05, 2018, 11:53:12 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43654109

Another Ulster rugby own goal - the arrogance of them
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on April 05, 2018, 01:11:27 PM
Quote from: longballin on April 05, 2018, 11:53:12 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43654109

Another Ulster rugby own goal - the arrogance of them

See the above.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: gallsman on April 05, 2018, 01:12:13 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 05, 2018, 11:37:11 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2018, 11:36:22 AM
Jesus, some people are easy offended

I'm not offended, I just think they're donkeys.

Precisely, whether offended or not, you'd have to be a bit of a Muppet not to recognise the stupidity of it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 05, 2018, 01:44:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 05, 2018, 01:12:13 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 05, 2018, 11:37:11 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2018, 11:36:22 AM
Jesus, some people are easy offended

I'm not offended, I just think they're donkeys.

Precisely, whether offended or not, you'd have to be a bit of a Muppet not to recognise the stupidity of it.
Stupid and not even remotely funny considering it was pre-meditated as someone went to the bother of printing names.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2018, 01:48:53 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 05, 2018, 01:44:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 05, 2018, 01:12:13 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 05, 2018, 11:37:11 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2018, 11:36:22 AM
Jesus, some people are easy offended

I'm not offended, I just think they're donkeys.

Precisely, whether offended or not, you'd have to be a bit of a Muppet not to recognise the stupidity of it.
Stupid and not even remotely funny considering it was pre-meditated as someone went to the bother of printing names.

wasnt funny and was stupid, but we are dealing with rugby players, not the local choir
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: haranguerer on April 05, 2018, 02:08:09 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 05, 2018, 01:44:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 05, 2018, 01:12:13 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 05, 2018, 11:37:11 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2018, 11:36:22 AM
Jesus, some people are easy offended

I'm not offended, I just think they're donkeys.

Precisely, whether offended or not, you'd have to be a bit of a Muppet not to recognise the stupidity of it.
Stupid and not even remotely funny considering it was pre-meditated as someone went to the bother of printing names.

I wondered at that too, but don't see how it could have been - it'd be ridiculously elaborate if so. I'm assuming the name tags were in the changing room or somewhere (it was at Ravenhill), and they took the opportunity to make tits of themselves
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: David McKeown on April 05, 2018, 02:26:04 PM
Quote from: Frank_The_Tank on April 05, 2018, 09:15:59 AM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2018, 06:29:21 AM

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/full-reporting-of-ulster-rape-trial-could-undermine-the-verdict-36776307.html

A lawyer for one of the rugby players acquitted in the Belfast rape trial has said he has concerns the lifting of reporting restrictions could "undermine the verdict of not guilty".

Frank O'Donoghue QC, who represented Stuart Olding (25) during the nine-week trial, said there was a "general concern" the not guilty verdicts could be undermined.

The lawyer said: "On occasion it (reporting) has been anything but respectful of the verdict."

An application by various media outlets to lift reporting restrictions imposed by Judge Patricia Smyth is expected to come before her next Monday.

Will it all be on public record anyway in a transcript of the trial that goes online?

All criminal trials are recorded for use in appeals etc but I've never heard of a transcript being made available. It would have to be heavily redacted to prevent the identity of the complainant and her details/history etc.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 05, 2018, 02:54:58 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on April 05, 2018, 02:08:09 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 05, 2018, 01:44:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 05, 2018, 01:12:13 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 05, 2018, 11:37:11 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2018, 11:36:22 AM
Jesus, some people are easy offended

I'm not offended, I just think they're donkeys.

Precisely, whether offended or not, you'd have to be a bit of a Muppet not to recognise the stupidity of it.
Stupid and not even remotely funny considering it was pre-meditated as someone went to the bother of printing names.

I wondered at that too, but don't see how it could have been - it'd be ridiculously elaborate if so. I'm assuming the name tags were in the changing room or somewhere (it was at Ravenhill), and they took the opportunity to make tits of themselves
Ah right didn't realise it was in Ravenhill as I just looked at the photo. Your explanation makes more sense! They are still idiots though!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 05, 2018, 03:59:53 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM

I see the following as aspects of rape culture.

Ignorance of or deliberate misunderstanding as to what constitutes rape, ie. the tropes about "if a woman doesn't scream, it can't be rape", which the defence QCs in the Belfast trial implied. We've actually had posters here who believed this, and not just the dregs who you'd expect to be ignorant but otherwise good posters who I would have thought this wouldn't have needed to be explained to. Implying or stating that spousal rape cannot exist, as George Hook did.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM

Ignorance or not correctly understanding aspects of laws by the general public is a common trope the world over given the way many laws that get enacted often do so without much public announcement, and this is most certainly is not limited to those regarding crimes of a sexual nature so framing it within such a narrow context is dishonest. Most people who falsely assume what exists within law and judicial process are happy enough to be corrected when informed by someone whom has knowledge in such an area. In any case I doubt anyone, including judges, lawyers, legislators etc. who make, argue and enforce the law know every single law that applies in a juristiction off hand.

As an example, how many people know that in Northern Ireland a man cannot technically be raped by a woman (despite rape and other sexual assault laws in most other Western countries being gender-neutral) but that there is another part of the Sexual Offences NI Order 2008 that covers a man being "made to penetrate" a willing female which is determined in trial on the same basis as a man forcing penetration on a female and if the accused is found guilty of the offence is potentially subject to the same severity of sentence (life imprisionment)?

That a rape victim does not scream or fight is not a law - it is what experts on the subject tell us, including the defence's expert medical witness Janet Hall.  However I would have thought it should also be common sense.

A person is not breaking any laws by stating or implying that if a woman doesn't scream or fight and shows no signs of visible consent, that it was not rape, or is evidence that it was consensual. They are just perpetuating misinformation.

The QCs who perpetuated such misinformation know full well that a non-scream/fight reaction is the norm for rape victims. Yet he still used it as a key point in his defence.

Spousal rape has been on the books in Ireland since 1990. You'd expect people to know that by now, especially high profile "opinion formers".

I don't deny there are some inconsistencies in rape laws both here and in the North.

Perhaps one of our legal experts can clarify Article 8 of the Northern Ireland Sexual Offences Act 2008?  Article 8.(1) appears to state that forcing another person to engage in sexual activity with a third person is only an offence for a man, while Article 8.(4), for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment, appears to be non-gender specific.

But the bottom line is very few sexual assaults are committed by women on men, comparatively speaking, than the other way around.

Biology has seen to that.

To quote Margaret Atwood, "men are afraid that women will laugh at them, women are afraid men will kill them".

Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
A belief that it's just fine to perform a sex act on a person who is asleep, and who by definition cannot give consent. On another widely read Irish forum there have been several posters claiming that this is just fine. It's sexual assault at best and outright rape at worst. There was a high profile court case in Ireland not very long ago where a man commited ten such rapes and was sentenced to no jail time whatsoever - it was subsequently appealed and he got 15 months.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
Maybe it's me but I've never known anyone within my circle of people for many years whom have assumed that performing a sexual act on someone whom is asleep or is in any condition to not give informed consent isn't illegal. "Several posters" on a "widely read Irish forum" saying that this, wrongly, isn't the case that this line of assumption is predominant and goes back again to the above about the general assumption of the state of law. Or the could be disingenuous but without context it's impossible to know.

"Several posters on a widely read Irish forum" (it was boards.ie, by the way) is indeed anecdotal evidence rather than a scientific study of attitudes in this country.

Performing a sex act on a sleeping person can hardly be put down to a "general assumption about the state of the law". If this is so, how ignorant would one have to be?

21% of Irish people believe that having sex without consent is justified in certain situations, according to a 2016 Eurobarometer report.

Would that statistic worry you in any way?

http://www.thejournal.ie/sex-consent-survey-3102174-Nov2016/#comments
http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2016/11/ebs_449_en-1.pdf


Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
A belief that a woman cannot withdraw consent at any point during sex. She can.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
I've known that either party, woman or man, can withdraw consent at any point prior to or during intercourse since before I was a teenager. Have you valid proof though something like a formal survey that your statement is widespread in Irish society either prior to or after the trial in question?

I don't have the particular statistics for how many people don't understand the concept that consent can be withdrawn.

But again referring to the report linked to in my previous paragraph:

11% of Irish people surveyed think being drunk or on drugs justifies sex without consent.
9% think sex without consent is okay if a person voluntarily goes home with someone or is wearing "revealing, provocative or sexy clothing".
7% agreed sexual intercourse without consent is justified if the person is out walking alone at night.

That the above three are serious crimes seems more obvious to me than the concept that consent can be withdrawn (I'm trying to imagine an ignoramus's mindset here).

So I don't think it is a stretch at all to suggest that there are a lot of people who struggle with the concept that consent can be withdrawn at any time.

Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Deliberately and mendaciously twisting the verdict of a trial to make out that a jury has found a complainant's allegations of rape to be lies.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that some people are acting in a mendacious manner. It is a stretch however to assume that everyone who thinks that the verdict assumes that it meant the IP's allegations were false. They might be, they probably weren't. It was not the job of the Jury to pass formal judgement on wherever the IP was lying or not, only to take into account wherever her claims were credible or not to helping decide judgement on the accused.

And to flip the coin over it is also "deliberately and mendaciously twisting the verdict of a trial to make out" that because a jury found all defendants not guilty on all charges, including rape, as they did not believe that rape was committed beyond probable doubt, that they actually did commit rape.

The jury did not find that the allegations were false. So anybody who claims that they did are either being mendacious or are just thick.

The jury did not find the defendants guilty of rape. I haven't claimed that they did. I respect that they came to a particular verdict based on the evidence before them.

I have my own views on what happened, but that's based on forming my own opinions on what I've read of the trial. They are only my personal views. I'm not being mendacious or claiming that the jury actually thought they committed rape. I don't know what the jury thought. Nobody does outside the jury members themselves.

Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Humiliation - the "Love Belfast Sluts" meme Blane McIlroy sent around, the demands to publicly out the complainant. The sickening feasting on the Slane Girl video and the attempt to publicly out her.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
I'm not aware of the meme in question so I won't comment on that. The demands to lift anonymity of the IP is again from a few arseholes and no sign of a general public malaise. As for "Slane Girl" both men and women were trying to spread her name across various channels, not to mention that unlike the trial in question where no one other than those involved in the bedroom in question can know for sure what went on, both the girl and boy in the Slane Girl case were committing clear breaches of the law in the ROI not to mention that those who were sharing photos of the incident in question could have been done for distributing child pornography.

I think it's fair to say that the obsession with the Slane Girl picture was pretty widespread. Is that evidence of a widespread malaise, at least among the demographic who were most preoccupied by it, young people? I think it could fairly be called that. It's certainly voyeurism and so called "slut shaming".

Now again, the evidence that there were pretty widespread calls for the anonymity of the complainant is only based on my impressions – determining whether there was such is by nature based on impressions, because there are unlikely to ever be formal surveys or polls of this question, but my distinct impression was that there was a pretty nasty and pretty significant minority of men on social media who held this opinion. That could be down to social media having a higher than average proportion of vocal men with neanderthal views, or it could be indicative that a lot of men in general actually do hold such neanderthal views. I highly doubt that such opinion is restricted to people who post online either. We can't know for sure what proportion of men hold or sympathise with such views but I know I read enough of them to make me unsettled.

Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
A belief that a woman desperately asking a man to "at least use a condom" constitutes consent. It doesn't. Again, this was a line pushed by the defence QCs.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
Lawyers pushing dodgy lines in court to try and convince a jury isn't exactly ethical, but not uncommon either. I certainly agree that it doesn't constitute consent as the IP in question gave the impression in her evidence of being in a forced scenario, but sadly I do understand why that line was attempted to be pushed. The line about "middle class girls" didn't impress me either.
Fair enough, but again it was a QC who knows full well what consent is, perpetrating misinformation.

Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
A belief that a woman entering a man's bedroom equals consent. There should always be a presumption of no consent until it's made clear consent exists.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
I don't think anyone I know assumes otherwise. Again, valid evidence that this is a widespread belief is needed here. The flipside is also true - a man entering a womans bedroom doesn't equal consent on any party either. I remember from my student days that a few women visited my bedroom from time to time and that I also visited their bedrooms, but nothing of a sexual nature ever occoured. Sure there was a bit of winking and nodding by others about that - and I would have been guilty myself of other lads in the same house as me - but there's a difference between a bit of that and making a direct assumption that sexual intercourse definitely occoured every time. And for that matter, the women were as bad as the men.

Again, I can't say for sure how widespread such a belief is. The real question is, how many men who, when sober, do not hold the belief that a woman entering a man's bedroom (or a man entering a woman's bedroom) constitutes consent, still hold that belief if they are drunk and the blood starts flowing to their penis instead of their brain?

Referring back to an earlier statistic, 9% think sex without consent is okay if a person voluntarily goes home with someone or is wearing "revealing, provocative or sexy clothing".

That's a pretty good indication, I'd say, as it's a very similar theme.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2018, 04:13:41 PM
So there is no rape culture then.. Phew I thought we were going to hit the 300 pages on this.. which would be bizzare as the trial verdict was given last week, by a jury that had all the evidence and were present the whole time, then they decided that the rugby lads were not guilty, very quickly as it turned out..

But lets see how many more pages we can fit in..

I'm sure there have been many more cases to post about (not famous though), considering there is such a widespread culture of rape.. Hopefully I'll make it back to the car before being sexually assulted, I did park it at the back too, ffs!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 05, 2018, 04:13:41 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
A belief that "no" doesn't mean no. This has been relentlessly pushed through popular culture, movies etc.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
I fully agree. If a woman at a party is trying to get a little intimate with me when I don't want to and I make that clear to her, she should be respectful of my choice not to engage with her rather than simply ignore it and instead trying to stick her cold hand down the front of my jeans, the same way that a man should also understand that no means no if she says or implies it. It needs to be implied that when a woman (hetreo, lesbian & transgender) say "no", they are actually saying no and that the idea of "50 no's and a yes = yes" needs to be taken apart, the same way that the idea that all men are always up and ready to fulfil sexual conquests needs to be heavily challenged.
Fair enough. I don't think anybody is saying that a man doesn't have a right to say no.


Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Joking about rape.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
Again I agree. I didn't find particularly funny a scene in an episode of Family Guy where Joe Swanson tricks Glenn Quagmire into having sex with him. I also didn't find it funny when in both 40 Days And 40 Nights and Wedding Crashers featured a scene each where the lead character (or co-lead in WC) is forced to have sex with a woman where they're in no position to refuse consent, and it was being implied that this was for comedic effect. Had the reverse been implied for comedic effect the (rightful) protests about it would be enormous. The only other kind of "rape" that gets joked about tends to be prison rape, with the implication that the inmate getting raped somehow deserves it not withstanding that it's not only fellow inmates committing the rape but also prison staff as well. On the other hand I've seen or heard next to nothing either socially or in the media about gay, lesbian or male to female rape being the butt of jokes. That's because almost everyone finds the idea of rape to be repulsive.

Lots of men joke about rape, and I'm not talking about movies or TV. Some of my own friends have joked about rape, into their 30s too. At school rape jokes and throwaway jokey comments like "rape the bitch" were pretty common. "You call it rape, I call it surprise sex" is a common euphemism. Men engage in this sort of stuff all the time. "Locker room talk", I think they call it now, though I don't recognise the term "locker room".

Here's some "locker room" joking about the complainant:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43654109

Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Using the utterly bogus argument of "personal responsibility" to mitigate the heinous crime of rape. There is no such a thing as the responsibility of a person to not be the victim of a crime, only the responsibility of a person to not commit a crime.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
Now this is one I call bullsh*t on. If I left my home for several hours with the front door deliberatly left wide open and then I return to find the TV and furniture stolen and the living room and kitchen vandalised do you think that the police and my neighbours are going to be sympathetic to me, not to mention my home contents insurance provider? Talking about personal responsibility in such a scenario like rape isn't about victim blaming. It is about being empowered with the knowledge to not fall yourself into scenarios that leave you in a vulnerable position where you can become a victim of crime. I'd say most of us have been involved in situations where in hindsight we were fortunate nothing bad occoured to us or people we know, and the lesson is supposed to be learned from it. The younger we are the more naive we are, so it makes good sense to tell those in their teens & early 20's on how to protect themselves. If we are to imply that for example young women don't need to be told not to put themselves into certain situations because of a greater risk a man might commit a sexual crime on them otherwise, then there's a problem here on several fronts. First, it's an infantile attitude to such women which is not deserving of them in general. Secondly it implies that women somehow have less agency then men - there will be a lot of women who'd kick yer arse if you suggested that they aren't able to take care of themselves the same way that men are supposed to. Thirdly, it reinforces sexist, mysogynistic and patriarchal attitudes that women cannot take responsibility at the same level as men, and that men should be making decisions for women. Fourthly, it is demeaning to male rape victims with the implication that they as a man should have known better. Finally, it also ignores than a woman can also be the perpatrator of a sexual crime on men - reported statistics indicate that although this is notably less common than the other way around, it does happen - and such reported incidents appear to be growing, wherever it's because there is an actual increase in such incidents taking place or wherever they are being more commonly reported (or both) is up for debate.

No one is a deserving victim of a crime, but it is the height of foolishness to either yourself or a loved one to be left as one when you either did not take or did not inform simple steps to help protect oneself. Ideally crime shouldn't exist, but it does, there's no getting away from it. Knowledge is power and keeping people stupid, or making assumptions that they are, definitely aren't the right way to go.

You misunderstand the difference between somebody taking common sense steps to protect themselves, or friends or family telling them to take such - which are perfectly normal and sensible things to do - and victim blaming if they do not.

George Hook asked the rhetorical question, "is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger?".

The first thing is that perceptions of putting yourself in danger will differ. I've read people say that the complainant in the Belfast trial put herself in danger by going back to Jackson's house. Which to me seems an entirely reasonable thing to have done on her part. Why should she expect to be raped or sexually assaulted in such a situation? The same goes for the woman in the Otto Putland rape case, the case Hook was commenting about, who went to the man's hotel room to have consensual sex. Are women who have one night stands putting themselves in danger? Should they automatically assume they are?

Patrick Freyne summed up this double bind beautifully:
QuoteHave I this straight, misogynists? Assuming men might rape insults all men, but if women DON'T assume they might be raped, they're to blame that sounds like the type of no-win situation that would suggest we have a rape culture.
https://twitter.com/PatrickFreyne1/status/907540309944434688

A woman who worked with my father was raped and murdered one night before Christmas over 20 years ago as she walked home alone after getting off a 4am Nitelink bus in Dublin. Was that "putting herself in danger"? Did she bear any "personal responsibility" for her own rape and murder?

I mean, she could have got a taxi, but didn't. But even then, a taxi driver could have attacked her. So are we to say that all women should never be alone late at night?

Did Manuela Riedo bear any personal responsibility for her own rape and murder on a dark lane beside the railway in Galway?

The "personal responsibility" mob overwhelmingly focus on the so called "personal responsibility" of the victim, which again, is not a thing. They rarely focus on the personal responsibility of the criminal.

The night of the Tipp-Kilkenny All-Ireland hurling final replay in 2014, I got a takeaway in Camden Street after leaving Flannery's. I was pissed and sat down to eat it on the kerb. A woman sat down beside me who was extremely drunk, on her own, her friends had gone home, she didn't know where she was and she could barely sit up straight, never mind walk straight. When I finished my takeaway I thought to myself that she was in an extremely vulnerable position so rather than leave her there, I decided to bring her back to my house, in which there were no other people that night, in a taxi so she could crash out. I showed her to one of the spare beds and she slept the night there, left at nine the next morning and I never saw her again.

Now, had I, for whatever reason, taken leave of my senses and decided to rape her, which would not have been difficult had I been so inclined, as I was at least a foot taller than her and far stronger, would she have been in any way to blame? Like hell she would. It would have been 100% my fault and my fault alone for committing a sickening crime and she would have been 0% to blame.

People should quite reasonably expect that they have the right to go to places, even to places most would not advise them to go to, and not expect to be attacked, and if they are, to not be apportioned any blame.

Of course all this conveniently leaves out the fact the vast majority of rapes are not of the stereotypical, nightmarish "rapist jumps out a laneway" variety, they occur in situations which are ostensibly far more benign.



Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PMIf we are to imply that for example young women don't need to be told not to put themselves into certain situations because of a greater risk a man might commit a sexual crime on them otherwise, then there's a problem here on several fronts. First, it's an infantile attitude to such women which is not deserving of them in general. Secondly it implies that women somehow have less agency then men - there will be a lot of women who'd kick yer arse if you suggested that they aren't able to take care of themselves the same way that men are supposed to. Thirdly, it reinforces sexist, mysogynistic and patriarchal attitudes that women cannot take responsibility at the same level as men, and that men should be making decisions for women.

To come back to this particular passage, I'm sorry, but it makes no sense to me and appears contradictory.

First of all you state that young women should be told to take steps not to put themselves in harm's way. I've no problem with that. Same goes for young men.

But then you state that if they're not told such, it betrays an infantile attitude towards young women,  implies they have less agency than men, are not able to take care of themselves to the same level as men, and reinforces patriarchal attitudes that men should be making decisions for women. This makes no sense. Not telling them what to do does the opposite of those things – it is leaving the young woman to make her own decisions as to what to do and giving her agency.

But again - I've no problem at all with family or friends giving advice to young women in this regard.

It's yourself that is advocating for something that arguably reinforces all those attitudes (I wouldn't argue that -  but one can see how an argument can be made for it).



Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
A belief that women who wear certain clothes or get drunk are in any way at all responsible if they are raped. They aren't. There is no such a thing as a woman "asking for it".

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
The idea of a woman wearing something that indicates that "she's desperate for it" is one that I find is a lot less common than it used to be. I remember reading back in 2000 of a survey of Belfast third-level students where over 50% of both men and women agreed that if a female rape victim was wearing revealing or sexually suggestive clothing then she was partially responsible for it happening. Thankfully a lot of work has been in progress since then mostly through education.

Also, "there is no such a thing as a woman "asking for it"". Really? I think you'll find that a lot of women out there are sexually active, some go to pubs and clubs to engage in casual sex and one night stands etc. or feel in the mood when their partner isn't and so on. It's a falsehood along the lines of saying "there's no such thing as a man asking for it". None of that however is a justification for rape against either sex.
Asking for what? Consensual sex? I dare say many men and women go out hoping for the possibility that the night might end with consensual sex. But that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about rape. And precisely no women go out "asking for" rape to be inflicted on them.


Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Being influenced by porn that explicitly degrades women.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
This needs to be put into context about what "degregation" is being done to women in certain types of porn. If you're talking about porn that features the likes of Max Hardcore then I'd definitely say that yes, that type of porn is degrading to women, but such content isn't very easy to get a hold of. You're very unlikely find it on the likes of P*rnHub, YouP*rn, RedTube etc. but such material has been available for decades where prior to internet availability they were often smuggled in as VHS tapes and used for shock value. On the other hand it is perfectly possible to find pornagraphic material that degrades men. Cuckold porn is one line I can think of from the top of my head.

If we're on about more "mainstream" p*rn that is much more accessible, there is a concern about how it may give teenagers unrealistic perceptions about sex that weren't around when I was a teenager because it wasn't as readily accessible - I'm talking about the likes of boys who has expectations to get a bl*w job on the first date, or girls whom are led to believe that having anal intercourse seems to be normal. It is worth asking however if in other countries have similar problems with their young women and men being exposed to such material that like in Ireland and Britain wasn't as readily available to the prior generation

In my view much of the content on mainstream porn sites is highly degrading to women. A quick search on PornHub for the word "slut" brings up 44,388 results. "Whore" brings up 13,901 results. It certainly doesn't end there. Most porn portrays a certain type of omnipotent, comic book alpha male. So men who watch it can often begin to have certain ideas of normative male sexual behaviour.

The problem with porn, especially since it is now available on tap, is that it is addictive. Before the internet, one might have seen porn once in the blue moon. I didn't see my first porn movie until I was 18. There was no chance to get addicted, you basically had to figure out sex for yourself.

The nature of all addictions is that you start off light, but then graduate to harder and harder stuff because what satisfied you before no longer does it. You go for extreme hits. In porn parlance that often means content that is violent or degrading. If a young man is watching violent or degrading porn, he might then feel an expectation to experience this for real. Blow jobs, ejaculating on the woman's face and swallowing seem to be the minimum expectatation that young men have from sex these days. The vast majority of porn focusses on male gratification, not female gratification.  The female is the one objectified, but her sexual gratification is generally pretty irrelevant. She's putting on a show for the entertainment of men.

And obviously, all porn feeds into an instant gratification culture.  People who feel the need for instant gratification are more likely to demand things to satisfy them. Especially when drink is involved, it's not hard to see how sex becomes that demand.

Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Referring to women as animals in language, ie. as a pig in a "spit roast", or a "dog" or a "cow" or a "bitch". Other terms such as "bird", "chick" or "filly" may be less ostensibly hostile but they still portray women as animals.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
So men are never referred to as pigs or cocks? Cow and bitch in my experience are more often used by women against other women than by men against women. As for bird, chick & filly, either I've stepped back into 1986 or a meetup of skangers/spides. Outside of them the only time I hear those words being used to describe women is with self-deprecating irony.

In comparison to women, men are rarely referred to as animals in language. The Gardai might be referred to as pigs, but that is more an insulting reference to the institution, and there are plenty of female Gardai.

The term "spit roast" is certainly degrading as it portrays not only an animal, but a dead one. Can you think of a term that portrays a man as a dead animal? Perhaps there are such terms but I can't think of any off hand.


Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Referring to sex as something a man does to a woman, and in violent terms - "ruined her", "destroyed her", "pumped her", "smashed her," "ploughed her". So much of the language men use surrounding sex is based around violence.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
Sex is something that a man does to a woman the same way as sex is something a woman does to a man. And being generally described in a hetreosexual PIV fashion involves thrusting from one or both partners physically. There isn't much in the words you mentioned that automatically suggest violence to me, not to mention women I know who've talked about having "wrecked" their man from the night before. What you're suggesting is starting to scrape the bottom of the mysogyny barrell.

You're both wrong and extremely naive about the thinking that young men have about this. Do you think JACOME and friends had the idea that sex is something a woman does to a man equally? They did in their hat. And I'd strongly suggest that they are by no means unrepresentative of young men.

"Ruined", "destroyed", "smashed", "banged" "nailed", "wrecking" are all violent words, all are extremely common euphemisms for sex, and far more commonly used by men.


Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Using deliberately degrading terms for women - "sluts", "whores", "brasses", "slags" etc., while referring to men as "legends", "top shaggers", "swordsmen" etc.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
You do realise that those terms describing women in a degrading fashion are used by both men and women? As for the male terms, "legends" I've heard of, "swordsmen" must be something in Dublin because I've never heard of it used in such a context. As for "top shaggers" lots of male posters in this thread were calling that out for being the sign of a shitehawk.

Can you name me any similarly insulting equivalent terms used for men, especially straight men?

Remember also that one of the biggest insults in the English language is a slang word for a vagina. And that's a word I've used many, many times myself.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 05, 2018, 04:17:13 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
The assumption of male power and male primacy, the notion that what women want is "a real man" (never mind that most men who have this idea are pathetic, weak ignoramuses who have a clue what a real man is).

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
Ireland has for thousands of years been a male-dominated society. Change to a more gender-equal society doesn't happen overnight and requires a lot of social norms to be challenged on an ongoing basis. However that works both ways in that in the likes of traditionally female dominated occupations there is still a fair bit of resistance from both men and women for men to enter such professions. For example how many male midwife's are there?

As for what women "want", different hetreo men have different perceptions as to what makes themselves attractive to the opposite sex and what doesn't. Shock horror! Either they'll find a woman whom has an easy submissive nature to him, or they're in for a rude shock! That also applies in reverse as to hetreo women's perceptions in attracting a man, and also to same-sex relationships. And I'd also challenge any definition of what a "real man" is the same way as how to define a "real woman". To me there is no such thing as a "real" man or woman except in the biological sense. What a lot of people see as "real" is down to generations of social construct that have been progressively challenged now for the last few decades, and for men and women these days there is far more tolerance even in more conservative areas for lifestyles, interests etc. that aren't seen as the norm

Most of that resistance comes from men themselves, who tend to feel a stigma or shame from going into traditionally female-dominated occupations. And that's precisely because outdated social constructs still exist in many male minds.

Rape culture is a regressive movement towards reinforcing outdated social constructs. It is intrinsically linked to the idea of male power and primacy.

Traditional male identity tended towards the idea of physical labour and working with your hands. Many if not most of those jobs are gone now and sedentary jobs predominate, the prospects of owning an affordable home have declined.

As I've previously stated, much of rape culture is loosely linked to the alt-right, which has flourished as a backlash due to the decline of traditional manual labour and a diminishing of certainties that are perceived to have been afforded to previous generations. The alt-right is intrinsically linked to male power and primacy and the idea of females as subservient. They go hand in hand. It's a simplistic backlash against "political correctness" and is a farcical longing for a simplistic return to a time when white males ruled the roost unchallenged. The alt-right is ignorance, revelling in ignorance, boorishness and nihilism. It imagines itself giving a two fingers to "the establishment".

One certainly doesnt have to subscribe to alt-right culture to subscribe to elements of rape culture, but it helps.

Alt-righters have a comic book verion of masculinity. As masculinity is perceived to be "under threat", they look to boorish oafs like Trump and McGregor to provide a model for themselves because they perceive these sort of men to be the epitome of alpha maleness. Trump and McGregor have a particular idea of what a "real woman" is. One who looks pretty and does what they want. Others who don't subscribe to alt-right culture but may find themselves subconsciously influenced by it find themselves looking to McGregor too. He says what he wants, he's ignorant, he's violent, he fucks hookers and snorts cocaine off them. He's the perfect model for young men who feel their masculinity is under threat to try and emulate.

I suspect many young men who have this sort of idea of what a "real man" is are indeed in for a rude awakening when they are looking to find partners.

Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
The assumption that female protest is crazy, irrelevant and illegitimate.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
The right to a peaceful protest is a democratic cornerstone in most of the First World. It is also an equal right to criticise in public the relevant points being brought up by such protests without prejudice. If you want to bring up something in a public forum you don't have the right not to be challenged on it.

I don't see very much genuine challenge from men. I read a lot of ridicule, dismissal, stereotyping of protestors as being man-haters or "feminazis" or all having pink or purple hair, and facetious calls for them to go away and shut up.

Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
The denial that there is a problem with any of the above.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
And here we fall into the trap of the circular reasoning fallacy.

"There is definitely an existence of God and anyone who says otherwise is in denial..."
"I don't see any firm evidence that God does exist..."
"...SEE!!!!!11 YOU'RE PROVING MY POINT!!!1"

The argument of "I'm right, you're wrong and anyone who disagrees just isn't able to see it" without showing any testable evidence is something most rational people grow out of beyond their teenage years.
You've offered little enough genuine challenge to my points. You've offered a lot of tangential points, deflections and denials based on the exact reasoning you're claiming to be against here.

Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Subscribing to or engaging with any one of those notions is subscribing to and engaging with rape culture. Obviously the more elements one subscribes to, the more entwined with such a culture one is.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
Congratulations. You have managed to make the term "rape culture" become a snarl phrase in an attempt to deligitimise any contary opinions to your own in the same fashion as those whom thrown around "cuck" and "social justice warrior".

I'm not trying to deligitimise opinions contrary to my own at all. I welcome genuine attempts to challenge my points. The list I wrote earlier is a list of undoubtedly malign and misogynist tropes and behaviours. You've provided what are in my view some very unconvincing challenges to certain ones. But your main problem, as becomes apparent in your paragraph above, appears to be with language, because you feel it's too "confrontational". Confrontation of things that need to be confronted is necessary. Advances in civil rights and changing the way society thinks about certain issues were all won by confrontation.

Almost always, those who don't like confronting a culture are never its victims.

Rape culture exists, and rather than pussyfooting around and making excuses for it, it needs to be confronted and obliterated.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Aughafad on April 05, 2018, 04:18:04 PM
w**ker springs to mind
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: sid waddell on April 05, 2018, 04:26:05 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Such a culture is perpetuated, amazingly enough, by males - primarily, but by no means exclusively, younger males, who don't know a lot about about the real world.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
First off, what makes you an authority of what "the real world" is? Secondly, as I've mentioned many times already, if such a thing can be called a culture then there are plenty of women that perpatrate it as well as men.

I think you'll find that in the real world, the concept of consent is a big deal. Read the stats again. There are plenty of Irish people, primarily men, because let's face it, hordes of women are not going around raping men, who have a problem with this.

Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Such a culture is by no means exclusive to alt-right-minded people, but it is a culture which is synonymous with alt-right thinking - the idea of the pick up artist movement that women are effectively robots there to be manipulated and "won" like trophies, the notion that a woman's place is in the home, that women should not do certain jobs or play certain sports.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
And once again you seek to deligitimse opposition to your point by trying to associate it with a bunch of absolute arseholes and to take it to extreme absurdities. For example...

"The Nazis banned smoking on public transport. Therefore anyone who supports banning smoking on public transport is a Nazi".

This type of intellectual dishonesty is something that Glenn Beck has been notorious in using. Do you really want to be compared with him?

But people who subscribe to rape culture are arseholes. Pick up artistry is inherently associated with the alt-right and does treat women as effectively robots to be manipulated and won. The notions that a woman's place is in the home or that women shouldn't play certain sports are reactionary right, misogynist viewpoints. Misogynism is an essential element of rape culture.

What's worse than Godwin's Law is trying to project Godwin's Law onto the person you're debating with.

Intellectual dishonesty, eh?

Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
The weird thing is that I find there is a big crossover between self proclaimed "law and order" types and those who subscribe to at least some elements of rape culture. Victims of rape or tend not to be uppermost in such people's minds, nor does the admission that there might be a problem in how young men think about consent, nor is light sentencing for rapists. Yet rape is the second most serious crime there is, after murder.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
You will find that most victims of crime (proven or assumed) tend not to be in most people's minds beyond a short period of time unless they either have some sort of vested interest like a family member or local person, or they are used as part of a media crusade e.g. the McCanns. Another reason that rape survivors are probably not in the general conscience of society is, ironically, because of their legal anonymity. It is difficult to put a face, a voice or a name to either a person or a group of people that are anonymous. There is a valid debate about how sections of our society approach the issue of consent for sexual activity, but using an emotive phrase as bait does nothing to really address that.

Rape is rarely considered a "law and order" or a "crime" issue. What high profile, self proclaimed "law and order" politicians in the "west" do you hear making rape and sexual abuse in general a big issue? Those that do talk about rape and sexual abuse only use it to whip up discrimination against Muslims (and I'm not saying Muslim cultures don't have a problem with misogyny or rape culture - they do). When it comes to native white populations, they're silent.

Most people relegate it to that oh so cute category that can be so easily be ignored - "women's issues".

I bet anything if you ask most people on the street to name three "crime" issues in this country right now, they won't mention rape or sexual abuse. They'll likely mention the Dublin drug gangs, Travellers stealing, assaults on the streets after the pubs and clubs close, burglaries etc.

One in five women in Ireland experience sexual violence. Now, if one in five people in Ireland had, say been the victim of gun violence, do you think we'd consider that a problem? Would we call it a gun violence culture? Or would that consitute "snarl words" for you?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/over-one-in-three-sexual-assault-victims-are-students-cork-centre-says-1.3134780?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fover-one-in-three-sexual-assault-victims-are-students-cork-centre-says-1.3134780

One in four females students at Trinity who responded to a survey say they have been the victims of sexual assault.
http://trinitynews.ie/one-in-four-female-tcd-students-sexually-assaulted-survey/

One in seven UCC students say they have been the victims of rape or serious sexual assault by only one in four of these victims report it.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/1-in-7-ucc-students-were-victims-of-rape-or-sex-assault-319537.html

Only with rape and sexual assault could such a problem be played down to such an extent and  people object to saying there is a culture of such crimes, when there clearly is.

Which self proclaimed "law and order" politicians or "advocates" complained about these?

QuoteA man who regularly raped and sexually assaulted his girlfriend in her sleep has received a suspended sentence of seven years imprisonment.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/no-jail-term-for-man-25-who-raped-girlfriend-while-she-slept-1.2283327?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fcircuit-court%2Fno-jail-term-for-man-25-who-raped-girlfriend-while-she-slept-1.2283327

Quote
A businessman has been jailed for six months for attacking and sexually assaulting a woman on Griffith Avenue in Dublin in October 2010.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0730/331210-lyons-jailed-for-six-months-for-sexual-assault/



Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Also, I think you'll find a great deal of crossover between men who subscribe to any or all elements of rape culture and those who oppose the repeal of the 8th Amendment - another tool of control for men over women.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
Nice strawman. What's your reasoning for women whom oppose repealing the 8th?

Decades of indoctrination by the Catholic Church would go a large part of the way to explaining it, as it did with opposition to decriminalisation of homosexuality, civil partnerships and same sex marriage, opposition to contraception and divorce and opposition to the X Case legislation.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
To conclude, "rape culture" exists in this element simply as a snarl word. It has little to no subjective, testable evidence that has and/or can be measured across Irish society.

I've given you plenty of evidence.

Here's some more.

QuoteA new survey of students has found that 8% of females and 3% of males were certain someone had sexual contact with them when they were unable to provide consent because they were drunk, passed out or otherwise incapacitated in the past year.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/8-of-female-students-report-sexual-contact-without-consent-464757.html

In Britain, one in 10 women has been raped, and more than a third subjected to sexual assault.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/unreported-rapes-the-silent-shame-7561636.html

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
It's a media soundbite/slogan that ultimately cheapens the word "rape" and the crime that is associated with it, diminishing its hard value by putting it next to scenarios that wouldn't even be considered minor levels of sexual assault or outright mysogyny. A few arguments that were made might be tangible enough to point to a culture of mysogyny in certain sections of the Irish population but targetting that in isolation can lead to unintended consequences.

You can call it a media soundbyte all you want. Rape culture exists on a spectrum, but it all feeds upwards towards the sharp end, and the sharp end is widespread sexual assault and rape.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
Just to make clear, my point of view is that to address the issues regarding sexual conduct and consent, is that it needs to involve Irish society as a whole and not just a portion of it. That means this includes men, women, third-genders, white, black, Asian, hetreosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, teenagers, senior citizens, "natives", foreigners, travellers etc. while by focusing on female survivors of rape perpatrated by males only attempts to address a part of the issue and one in isolation can be easily abused and manipulated to serve certain interests whereas it's more difficult to steer a narritave when it concerns all residents and visitors from around 12 year old and up. I said a few days ago that IMO the like of the #ibelieveher movement is inadvertantly helping to support sexism etc. and hopefully the above explains my reasons - being played for by a fringe group within the feminist movement that unlike the mainstream which seeks to equalise gender roles in society (unless there are compelling reasons otherwise) where a person's ability should not be determined by their gender, women - and men - within this sub group's primary motivation is to punish men as a whole for the sins of other men and those of their fathers, uncles, grandfathers etc. against women whilst ignoring sins made by women against men (yes, they exist). I don't see that as progressive. Under the law of both sides of the border we as individual adults are deemed, with the exception of those whom are deemed to not be able to give agency, to be equal in the eyes of the law. On that front whilst I recognise that male on female sexual assault and rape is significantly the most common type it is most certainly not exclusive. A male rape survivor is no less or more entitled to support for their experience than a female rape survivor. There should be no competition whatsoever in looking to rank different rape survivors either by gender or sexual orientation. If there was a movement to "equalise" sexual crime laws I would fully support it - but I can't back what has been happening because to me it is promoting an "us vs. them" approach to justice.
Who says a male or non gender-binary rape survior is not equally entitled to support than a female rape survivor?

What is your evidence for saying anybody wants to "punish men as a whole"? Nice imagined victimhood.

To address the problems facing not just Irish but all societies regarding rape and sexual assault, education and confrontation is necessary. That should mean mandatory consent classes at school but also calling out and challenging the prevailing culture for what it is.

The only people whose backs are got up by such confrontation are those who subscribe to such a culture and feel they have something to lose.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on April 05, 2018, 04:28:29 PM
jesus fuckin wept
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2018, 04:31:02 PM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on April 05, 2018, 04:28:29 PM
jesus fuckin wept

Dog with a bone!! He'd be some craic out on the town!
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 05, 2018, 04:31:39 PM
Get a hobby Sid.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on April 05, 2018, 04:33:47 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2018, 04:26:05 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Such a culture is perpetuated, amazingly enough, by males - primarily, but by no means exclusively, younger males, who don't know a lot about about the real world.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
First off, what makes you an authority of what "the real world" is? Secondly, as I've mentioned many times already, if such a thing can be called a culture then there are plenty of women that perpatrate it as well as men.

I think you'll find that in the real world, the concept of consent is a big deal. Read the stats again. There are plenty of Irish people, primarily men, because let's face it, hordes of women are not going around raping men, who have a problem with this.

Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Such a culture is by no means exclusive to alt-right-minded people, but it is a culture which is synonymous with alt-right thinking - the idea of the pick up artist movement that women are effectively robots there to be manipulated and "won" like trophies, the notion that a woman's place is in the home, that women should not do certain jobs or play certain sports.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
And once again you seek to deligitimse opposition to your point by trying to associate it with a bunch of absolute arseholes and to take it to extreme absurdities. For example...

"The Nazis banned smoking on public transport. Therefore anyone who supports banning smoking on public transport is a Nazi".

This type of intellectual dishonesty is something that Glenn Beck has been notorious in using. Do you really want to be compared with him?

But people who subscribe to rape culture are arseholes. Pick up artistry is inherently associated with the alt-right and does treat women as effectively robots to be manipulated and won. The notions that a woman's place is in the home or that women shouldn't play certain sports are reactionary right, misogynist viewpoints. Misogynism is an essential element of rape culture.

What's worse than Godwin's Law is trying to project Godwin's Law onto the person you're debating with.

Intellectual dishonesty, eh?

Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
The weird thing is that I find there is a big crossover between self proclaimed "law and order" types and those who subscribe to at least some elements of rape culture. Victims of rape or tend not to be uppermost in such people's minds, nor does the admission that there might be a problem in how young men think about consent, nor is light sentencing for rapists. Yet rape is the second most serious crime there is, after murder.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
You will find that most victims of crime (proven or assumed) tend not to be in most people's minds beyond a short period of time unless they either have some sort of vested interest like a family member or local person, or they are used as part of a media crusade e.g. the McCanns. Another reason that rape survivors are probably not in the general conscience of society is, ironically, because of their legal anonymity. It is difficult to put a face, a voice or a name to either a person or a group of people that are anonymous. There is a valid debate about how sections of our society approach the issue of consent for sexual activity, but using an emotive phrase as bait does nothing to really address that.

Rape is rarely considered a "law and order" or a "crime" issue. What high profile, self proclaimed "law and order" politicians in the "west" do you hear making rape and sexual abuse in general a big issue? Those that do talk about rape and sexual abuse only use it to whip up discrimination against Muslims (and I'm not saying Muslim cultures don't have a problem with misogyny or rape culture - they do). When it comes to native white populations, they're silent.

Most people relegate it to that oh so cute category that can be so easily be ignored - "women's issues".

I bet anything if you ask most people on the street to name three "crime" issues in this country right now, they won't mention rape or sexual abuse. They'll likely mention the Dublin drug gangs, Travellers stealing, assaults on the streets after the pubs and clubs close, burglaries etc.

One in five women in Ireland experience sexual violence. Now, if one in five people in Ireland had, say been the victim of gun violence, do you think we'd consider that a problem? Would we call it a gun violence culture? Or would that consitute "snarl words" for you?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/over-one-in-three-sexual-assault-victims-are-students-cork-centre-says-1.3134780?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fover-one-in-three-sexual-assault-victims-are-students-cork-centre-says-1.3134780

One in four females students at Trinity who responded to a survey say they have been the victims of sexual assault.
http://trinitynews.ie/one-in-four-female-tcd-students-sexually-assaulted-survey/

One in seven UCC students say they have been the victims of rape or serious sexual assault by only one in four of these victims report it.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/1-in-7-ucc-students-were-victims-of-rape-or-sex-assault-319537.html

Only with rape and sexual assault could such a problem be played down to such an extent and  people object to saying there is a culture of such crimes, when there clearly is.

Which self proclaimed "law and order" politicians or "advocates" complained about these?

QuoteA man who regularly raped and sexually assaulted his girlfriend in her sleep has received a suspended sentence of seven years imprisonment.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/no-jail-term-for-man-25-who-raped-girlfriend-while-she-slept-1.2283327?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fcircuit-court%2Fno-jail-term-for-man-25-who-raped-girlfriend-while-she-slept-1.2283327

Quote
A businessman has been jailed for six months for attacking and sexually assaulting a woman on Griffith Avenue in Dublin in October 2010.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0730/331210-lyons-jailed-for-six-months-for-sexual-assault/



Quote from: sid waddell on April 04, 2018, 02:07:45 PM
Also, I think you'll find a great deal of crossover between men who subscribe to any or all elements of rape culture and those who oppose the repeal of the 8th Amendment - another tool of control for men over women.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
Nice strawman. What's your reasoning for women whom oppose repealing the 8th?

Decades of indoctrination by the Catholic Church would go a large part of the way to explaining it, as it did with opposition to decriminalisation of homosexuality, civil partnerships and same sex marriage, opposition to contraception and divorce and opposition to the X Case legislation.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
To conclude, "rape culture" exists in this element simply as a snarl word. It has little to no subjective, testable evidence that has and/or can be measured across Irish society.

I've given you plenty of evidence.

Here's some more.

QuoteA new survey of students has found that 8% of females and 3% of males were certain someone had sexual contact with them when they were unable to provide consent because they were drunk, passed out or otherwise incapacitated in the past year.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/8-of-female-students-report-sexual-contact-without-consent-464757.html

In Britain, one in 10 women has been raped, and more than a third subjected to sexual assault.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/unreported-rapes-the-silent-shame-7561636.html

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
It's a media soundbite/slogan that ultimately cheapens the word "rape" and the crime that is associated with it, diminishing its hard value by putting it next to scenarios that wouldn't even be considered minor levels of sexual assault or outright mysogyny. A few arguments that were made might be tangible enough to point to a culture of mysogyny in certain sections of the Irish population but targetting that in isolation can lead to unintended consequences.

You can call it a media soundbyte all you want. Rape culture exists on a spectrum, but it all feeds upwards towards the sharp end, and the sharp end is widespread sexual assault and rape.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
Just to make clear, my point of view is that to address the issues regarding sexual conduct and consent, is that it needs to involve Irish society as a whole and not just a portion of it. That means this includes men, women, third-genders, white, black, Asian, hetreosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, teenagers, senior citizens, "natives", foreigners, travellers etc. while by focusing on female survivors of rape perpatrated by males only attempts to address a part of the issue and one in isolation can be easily abused and manipulated to serve certain interests whereas it's more difficult to steer a narritave when it concerns all residents and visitors from around 12 year old and up. I said a few days ago that IMO the like of the #ibelieveher movement is inadvertantly helping to support sexism etc. and hopefully the above explains my reasons - being played for by a fringe group within the feminist movement that unlike the mainstream which seeks to equalise gender roles in society (unless there are compelling reasons otherwise) where a person's ability should not be determined by their gender, women - and men - within this sub group's primary motivation is to punish men as a whole for the sins of other men and those of their fathers, uncles, grandfathers etc. against women whilst ignoring sins made by women against men (yes, they exist). I don't see that as progressive. Under the law of both sides of the border we as individual adults are deemed, with the exception of those whom are deemed to not be able to give agency, to be equal in the eyes of the law. On that front whilst I recognise that male on female sexual assault and rape is significantly the most common type it is most certainly not exclusive. A male rape survivor is no less or more entitled to support for their experience than a female rape survivor. There should be no competition whatsoever in looking to rank different rape survivors either by gender or sexual orientation. If there was a movement to "equalise" sexual crime laws I would fully support it - but I can't back what has been happening because to me it is promoting an "us vs. them" approach to justice.
Who says a male or non gender-binary rape survior is not equally entitled to support than a female rape survivor?

What is your evidence for saying anybody wants to "punish men as a whole"? Nice imagined victimhood.

To address the problems facing not just Irish but all societies regarding rape and sexual assault, education and confrontation is necessary. That should mean mandatory consent classes at school but also calling out and challenging the prevailing culture for what it is.

The only people whose backs are got up by such confrontation are those who subscribe to such a culture and feel they have something to lose.

are you the same Sid Waddell who thought it humour to write about shagging Margaret Keady within a week of her late husband dying ???????????

standards ????
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Hardy on April 05, 2018, 04:38:17 PM
Feckit I give up. No matter how fast I read I keep falling behind Sid's faster typing.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Syferus on April 05, 2018, 05:03:13 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 05, 2018, 04:31:39 PM
Get a hobby Sid.

Your response to one of two long replies tells its own story.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on April 05, 2018, 06:09:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 05, 2018, 05:03:13 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 05, 2018, 04:31:39 PM
Get a hobby Sid.

Your response to one of two long replies tells its own story.

What story's that now?  Enlighten us.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Taylor on April 05, 2018, 06:22:15 PM
Jesus is not weeping but wailing at some of this shite.

Would there be a chance Sid and Syf are one and the same?
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Farrandeelin on April 05, 2018, 09:17:24 PM
Same one Orchard park. But that was supposed to be a bit of 'humour'. At least he deleted it.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Tony Baloney on April 05, 2018, 09:24:09 PM
Quote from: Taylor on April 05, 2018, 06:22:15 PM
Jesus is not weeping but wailing at some of this shite.

Would there be a chance Sid and Syf are one and the same?
Hmmm. Not the first time this has been mentioned.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Franko on April 06, 2018, 12:30:44 AM
Quote from: Franko on April 05, 2018, 06:09:46 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 05, 2018, 05:03:13 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 05, 2018, 04:31:39 PM
Get a hobby Sid.

Your response to one of two long replies tells its own story.

What story's that now?  Enlighten us.

Yep, thought as much.  Heavy on the the hyperbole, but f**k all substance.
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Orchard park on April 06, 2018, 01:10:51 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 05, 2018, 09:17:24 PM
Same one Orchard park. But that was supposed to be a bit of 'humour'. At least he deleted it.

Took a long time to
Title: Re: The ulster rugby trial
Post by: Gaaboardmod3 on April 06, 2018, 09:01:46 AM
Locking this topic now.