The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Frank_The_Tank

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

seafoid

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

Frank_The_Tank

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

Milltown Row2

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
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

AQMP

#2389
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??

AQMP

#2390
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

seafoid

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

AQMP

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?

trailer

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.

AQMP

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? 

AQMP

McIlroy's barrister having a go at the PSNI too

Asal Mor

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.

AQMP

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!

yellowcard

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.     

AQMP

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!