The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

sid waddell

#690
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.

Wildweasel74

Think this thread reaching the point of closing! Its no real benefit to a thread on a Gaa discussion board to be honest

Syferus

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.

seafoid

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
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

Orior

Was the female witness a friend of the plaintiff? She didn't do her any favours.
Cover me in chocolate and feed me to the lesbians

Syferus

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.

tonto1888

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

Orior

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.
Cover me in chocolate and feed me to the lesbians

Milltown Row2

So the defence brought someone in as witness to "help" their case? Strange
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Orior

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.
Cover me in chocolate and feed me to the lesbians

macdanger2

#700
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?

CiKe

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.

macdanger2

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

imtommygunn

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.

Milltown Row2

Are posters not just posting what's been on the media?
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea