The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

David McKeown

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.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

AZOffaly

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. 

AQMP

David, does digital penetration or penetration with an object without consent not count as rape too??

magpie seanie

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.

AQMP

Another issue, Rory Harrison has been charged with perverting the course of justice.  I wonder what the evidence for this is??

brokencrossbar1

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.

Syferus

#666
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.

gallsman

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.

AZOffaly

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.

Avondhu star

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"
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

gallsman

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.

David McKeown

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.

2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

gallsman

Witness has now said she 100% saw sex (Jackson) but doesn't think the woman looked "frozen with fear".

Orchard park

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

GetOverTheBar

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.