The ulster rugby trial

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

Previous topic - Next topic

whitey

Quote from: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 01, 2018, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? You're basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

FFS will uou lighten up.......Id bet 90% of fellas were thinking exactly the same thing

You can wrap yourself in sheeps wool if you were triggered by my comment

ONeill

Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 02:38:52 PM
Capera

What exactly was the judiciary supposed to do about the vaginal charge for Olding? How was it sloppy work?

Drop the charge I would have thought. It really depends how late they knew they wouldn't be presenting a case to prosecute it no?

Since writing the blog I think what happened is the girl wasn't sure if Olding had vaginal sex with her. She said she was face down so couldn't be sure.

Guess it depends on the timeline of finding that out.

But that's nothing to do with the judiciary. The decision of what charges to bring is the sole preserve of the PPS. Once Olding entered a not guilty plea to the charge at arraignment (and I imagine there must have been some evidence to ground that charge at that stage) the only way it could have played out is exactly how it did.

Of course. I'm wrong.

WTF? You know how the gaaboard works?
I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames.

Tony Baloney

Quote from: ONeill on April 02, 2018, 04:09:11 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 02:38:52 PM
Capera

What exactly was the judiciary supposed to do about the vaginal charge for Olding? How was it sloppy work?

Drop the charge I would have thought. It really depends how late they knew they wouldn't be presenting a case to prosecute it no?

Since writing the blog I think what happened is the girl wasn't sure if Olding had vaginal sex with her. She said she was face down so couldn't be sure.

Guess it depends on the timeline of finding that out.

But that's nothing to do with the judiciary. The decision of what charges to bring is the sole preserve of the PPS. Once Olding entered a not guilty plea to the charge at arraignment (and I imagine there must have been some evidence to ground that charge at that stage) the only way it could have played out is exactly how it did.

Of course. I'm wrong.

WTF? You know how the gaaboard works?
;D I think it's a 1 day ban for admitting you are wrong. Nobody has even been banned.

quit yo jibbajabba

Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 02, 2018, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: ONeill on April 02, 2018, 04:09:11 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: caprea on April 01, 2018, 03:15:21 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 01, 2018, 02:38:52 PM
Capera

What exactly was the judiciary supposed to do about the vaginal charge for Olding? How was it sloppy work?

Drop the charge I would have thought. It really depends how late they knew they wouldn't be presenting a case to prosecute it no?

Since writing the blog I think what happened is the girl wasn't sure if Olding had vaginal sex with her. She said she was face down so couldn't be sure.

Guess it depends on the timeline of finding that out.

But that's nothing to do with the judiciary. The decision of what charges to bring is the sole preserve of the PPS. Once Olding entered a not guilty plea to the charge at arraignment (and I imagine there must have been some evidence to ground that charge at that stage) the only way it could have played out is exactly how it did.

Of course. I'm wrong.

WTF? You know how the gaaboard works?
;D I think it's a 1 day ban for admitting you are wrong. Nobody has even been banned.

10plus years ive been comin here. First time.

Poster of the year fo sho'

Avondhu star

Quote from: whitey on April 02, 2018, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 01, 2018, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? You're basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

FFS will uou lighten up.......Id bet 90% of fellas were thinking exactly the same thing

You can wrap yourself in sheeps wool if you were triggered by my comment

Why when Syferus is mentioned it always comes back to sheep?
Lee Harvey Oswald , your country needs you

Syferus

#3440
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 02, 2018, 02:46:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 01, 2018, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? You're basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

And you're basically a Tony F spouting shite on every thread. At least Fearon stuck to the bishops.

The mask is slipping a bit I see.


Quote from: whitey on April 02, 2018, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 01, 2018, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? You're basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

FFS will uou lighten up.......Id bet 90% of fellas were thinking exactly the same thing

You can wrap yourself in sheeps wool if you were triggered by my comment

Yeah, 90% of people here definitely think that when they look at protesters. You have clearly marked yourself out as someone who is living in a world far removed from most people so you'd want to be careful when trying to talk for the common man.

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.

Yeah possibly otherwise they would have struggled to get itnpassed the PE stage.

Milltown Row2

Quote from: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 04:58:48 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 02, 2018, 02:46:20 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 01, 2018, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? You're basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

And you're basically a Tony F spouting shite on every thread. At least Fearon stuck to the bishops.

The mask is slipping a bit I see.


Quote from: whitey on April 02, 2018, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Syferus on April 02, 2018, 02:37:58 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 01, 2018, 06:57:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on April 01, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 01, 2018, 04:08:20 PM
Holy $hit.....some proper two baggers  at the protest marches

Two baggers??

One for her head and one for yours.

Do you find these lame jokes funny? You're basically Tony Feron without a hardon for bishops.

FFS will uou lighten up.......Id bet 90% of fellas were thinking exactly the same thing

You can wrap yourself in sheeps wool if you were triggered by my comment

Yeah, 90% of people here definitely think that when they look at protesters. You have clearly marked yourself out as someone who is living in a world far removed from most people so you'd want to be careful when trying to talk for the common man.

When the first set of protesters came here they also left a bad feeling!
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Main Street

Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

David McKeown

#3444
Quote from: Main Street on April 02, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

The complainant wasn't interviewed as such. She was making a complaint and wasn't therefore subject to the same level of questioning as the defendants. The defence made a big play on this but it wouldn't be that unusual as indicated by the above link about the Met police changing their investigatory style. The PPS wouldn't be involved at the stage the complaint is being made but usually would meet with the complainant and some other key witnesses in advance of the hearing. Either they did this and proceeded with the trial which in hindsight seems a strange decision for the reasons BCB discussed above or they didn't which would be unusual.

As for DF's evidence it's hard to understand why the PPS thought the issue of whether or not whatever was going on looked consensual wasn't going to be the focus of her evidence. From the reports we are reading that was already in her police statement.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Main Street

Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 10:57:05 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 02, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

The complainant  wasn't interviewed as such. She was making a complaint and wasn't therefore subject to the same level of questioning as the defendants. The defence made a big play on this but it wouldn't be that unusual as indicated by the above link about the Met police changing their investigatory style. The PPS wouldn't be involved at the stage the complaint is being made but usually would meet with the complainant and some other key witnesses in advance of the hearing. Either they did this and proceeded with the trial which in hindsight seems a strange decision for the reasons BCB discussed above or they didn't which would be unusual.

As for DF's evidence it's hard to understand why the PPS thought the issue of whether or not whatever was going on looked consensual wasn't going to be the focus of her evidence. From the reports we are reading that was already in her police statement.
I did not say the complainant was interviewed as such, I wrote the witness DF was interviewed as such.
And afaiaa,  it was admitted by the investigation team that they did not test the evidence they had  collated,  with the prosecution  --  some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence was not done.
Either it was incompetence or the consequence of cutbacks in funding of public services, or both.

David McKeown

Quote from: Main Street on April 03, 2018, 01:11:08 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 10:57:05 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 02, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on April 02, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 02, 2018, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 02, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/rugby-rape-trial-witness-dara-florence-turned-down-big-cash-offers-to-sell-story-36761928.html

When that evidence is seen as the key corroborating evidence for the prosecution you seriously have to question why they called her as a witness at all. That's the sort of evidence the defence would have used!

I was thinking something similar although it's somewhat presumptuous of the Belfast telegraph to assume this was the turning point. May have been but not guaranteed.

That's as much to sensationalise it more than anything. I honestly would question the validity in taking this prosecution in the first place. The complainants story was inconsistent, no medical evidence whatsoever of vaginal sex, the only physical evidence of note was some blood and a small cut which could be very easily explained through the fact that Jackson said he put his fingers inside her, the main corroborating witness openly stating that the complainant did not seem in distress and that Olding had his hands on his own legs when he was receiving oral sex, to my mind that all adds up to a very weak prosecution case and when it comes down to a 'he said she said' then it is nearly impossible to convict.

That coupled with the decision to persue a charge of vaginal rape against Olding at least to arraignment does raise serious questions. Of course we have the beauty of hindsight here and don't know what if any evidence wasn't available/admissible at least the trial. That coupled with a complainant who seemed credible and may have been keen to proceed might explain the bringing of the prosecution. It may have looked a strong case on paper.
Was it not admitted that the  investigation team did not test the evidence with the prosecution, some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence and the case?
The only witness DF  had said in police statements that she had the impression that the sex looked consensual but was 100% sure PJ was engaged in a penetrative sex act.
When her evidence was given in court the balance was shifted to the weight of the (almost definite) perception of consent versus a questionable perception of penetration.

The complainant  wasn't interviewed as such. She was making a complaint and wasn't therefore subject to the same level of questioning as the defendants. The defence made a big play on this but it wouldn't be that unusual as indicated by the above link about the Met police changing their investigatory style. The PPS wouldn't be involved at the stage the complaint is being made but usually would meet with the complainant and some other key witnesses in advance of the hearing. Either they did this and proceeded with the trial which in hindsight seems a strange decision for the reasons BCB discussed above or they didn't which would be unusual.

As for DF's evidence it's hard to understand why the PPS thought the issue of whether or not whatever was going on looked consensual wasn't going to be the focus of her evidence. From the reports we are reading that was already in her police statement.
I did not say the complainant was interviewed as such, I wrote the witness DF was interviewed as such.
And afaiaa,  it was admitted by the investigation team that they did not test the evidence they had  collated,  with the prosecution  --  some final stringent test they do to test the quality of the evidence was not done.
Either it was incompetence or the consequence of cutbacks in funding of public services, or both.

I wonder what the test was they were referring too
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

magpie seanie

Caprea - maybe it's time to close this thread? Very little to be gained by keeping this going I'd suggest.

screenexile

So Craig Gilroy is in the dock now for a comment he made on a whatsapp group?

Whatever about not liking somebody or their misogyny I'm pretty sure you can't stop people from working just because they are a dick!!

Milltown Row2

Quote from: screenexile on April 03, 2018, 10:59:09 AM
So Craig Gilroy is in the dock now for a comment he made on a whatsapp group?

Whatever about not liking somebody or their misogyny I'm pretty sure you can't stop people from working just because they are a dick!!

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