The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

David McKeown

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.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

haranguerer

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?!

gallsman

They'll have access to his police interviews.

David McKeown

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
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

haranguerer

Trying to pull a fast one to get him on the stand perhaps? It would be hearsay, wouldn't it?

longballin

If I was falsely accused I'd be running to get into that witness box.

Avondhu star

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
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

gallsman

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.

Frank_The_Tank

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.
Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience

David McKeown

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.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

haranguerer

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...

Aaron Boone


sid waddell

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.

Gabriel_Hurl

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.

haranguerer

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.