The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

magpie seanie

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.

Hound

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.

magpie seanie

Have ye read the evidence from this afternoon?????

AZOffaly

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?

AZOffaly

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.

Hound

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.

magpie seanie

Did ye see the evidence from the defence Doctor about resistance?

Hound

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!

magpie seanie

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.

Milltown Row2

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

magpie seanie

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.

Hound

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

magpie seanie


AQMP

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??

magpie seanie

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.