The ulster rugby trial

[Hound]

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

Given that you're the one completely fabricating stories today, you'll have up forgive anyone who gets a bit fed up with you when your fail to understand an opinion and then compound your own stupidity by incorrectly summarising said opinion.

I held hands up straight away, apologised, corrected what I said.

He said it was a "pretty important piece of evidence given by the defence doctor" and "to me, that's crucial".

Hound, you had exclaimed "That's not evidence!", which is pretty dumb considering the doctor was giving evidence. Of course it is evidence in this case, from someone who has vast experience in rape cases, to reply in answer to the question "whether most victims of sexual assault resist or allow it to happen.
she replied: "The evidence overwhelmingly is that it's allowed to happen."
Here you have evidence coming from an expert witness called by the defense, emphatically supporting the contention of the prosecution and the complainant. It might just happen to hand the prosecution some important morsels of clout when it comes to evaluating the evidence from the only witness to what happened in that room,  the "no sign of non-consensual sex" versus  "no signs of consent".

"That's not evidence of rape!" is what I was saying, which I thought was obvious, but clearly it wasn't.

So I'll rephrase:

The evidence of the expert witness in relation to victims allowing it to happen, is not, in any way, shape or form, evidence of rape.

It does mean that just because she wasn't struggling when the witness came in, that jurors can't assume it wasn't rape. But a cry for help would have stopped everything, so that would still create doubt in my mind.

The medical evidence of today's doctor in relation to the blood and cut though was very much in favour of the defendants.  Taking both doctors into account, I was expecting a lot more medical evidence from what the prosecutor said in his opening statement.

[LeoMc]

Looks to be, based on what I've read of the evidence to date, that Olding must be very close to being cleared.

Entered the room, and as the witness said while we would not have seen actual consent been given, it looked like consensual actions. There was no violence or threat of violence, according to the IP. Witness saw the IP's head on Olding's midrift and Olding's hands down by his side.

Jackson still a harder case to call. Medical evidence not great from his point of view, but perhaps key that the doctor said the same injuries could be caused if it was consensual.

Where did you read That?  Do you have a link?

Edited now. Sorry.

This is what she said:

"Her head was down towards Stuart's middle
Olding was propped up by pillows and his legs spread out and she was in the middle of them.
I remember seeing the movement of her face and more of her hair. She turned and faced away from me."

"It looked like consensual actions" - Surprised the prosecution QC didn't follow this up, but maybe he did and it just wasn't reported.

They did. On re-examination Hedworth QC asked her if there were any signs of the woman "positively consenting". She said No.

What would that mean? Waving to the girl to join them or saying its ok I'm enjoying this? strange question

I would assume it was to contrast with the earlier Defense question of did there appear to be a lack of consent.

[LeoMc]

On re-examination Hedworth QC asked her if there were any signs of the woman "positively consenting". She said No.

Absolutely correct. But you could take Q3 below or Q6 below and requote at will to give opposite sides of the argument. Really need to take all of what she said re consent into account, rather than just one answer (and of course bearing in mind she was getting a very quick snapshot).

Q: "Did you have any concern when you left the room?"
A: "No."

Q: "Did you see any sign that (the complainant) was frozen with fear when you were stood watching her on the bed?"
A: "No,"

Q: "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?"
A: "No."

Q: "There was nothing unusual in the position that she was adopting that made you feel her position was forced or contrived in any way?"
A: "No."

Q: "Apart from turning her head, were there any actions?"
A: "No."

Q: "Were there any signs that (the complainant) was positively consenting?"
A: "No."

I am not trying to give any inference re consent or lack thereof. I quoted that question to answer the question in tje previous post about the lack of a cross examination.

[trueblue1234]

Imagine having every little detail about your sexual encounter recounted in public. Sexual positions, semen, oral sex, vaginal sex, who was or wasn't there and your Mother and Father having to listen to it all. It being poured over on social media, the news everything. Both the accused and accuser. These guys are fucked whatever happens. What went on in that bedroom will hang over them till the day they die.

My heart quietly sinks a little further every time I see an attempt to draw a false equilevence between the lots of a rape victim and a rapist.

One deserves so much respect for their bravery in coming forward knowing full well what was in store, and will certainly get that respect from anyone who is worth associating with in the first place, while the other deserves every nasty jibe they get.

Even if they didn't do it?

Syf doesn't care. He's made his decision after 1.5 hrs of a trial. His decision is final.

[johnneycool]

Imagine having every little detail about your sexual encounter recounted in public. Sexual positions, semen, oral sex, vaginal sex, who was or wasn't there and your Mother and Father having to listen to it all. It being poured over on social media, the news everything. Both the accused and accuser. These guys are fucked whatever happens. What went on in that bedroom will hang over them till the day they die.

My heart quietly sinks a little further every time I see an attempt to draw a false equilevence between the lots of a rape victim and a rapist.

One deserves so much respect for their bravery in coming forward knowing full well what was in store, and will certainly get that respect from anyone who is worth associating with in the first place, while the other deserves every nasty jibe they get.

Even if they didn't do it?

Syf doesn't care. He's made his decision after 1.5 hrs of a trial. His decision is final.

I doubt it took that long.

[Esmarelda]

PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO SYFERUS

[magpie seanie]

PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO SYFERUS

That would be a good start.

[seafoid]

I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change

[magpie seanie]

He may well have but you're not going to change hearts and minds by the way he carries on.

[Hound]

I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change

the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.

[sid waddell]

I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change

the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.

How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.

[nrico2006]

I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change

the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.

How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.

How is the complainant's credibility at this point any higher than the defendant's?

[Taylor]

I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change

the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.

How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.

From the evidence so far PJ's story doesnt seem to ring true as the witness has told a different story to his
Olding seems true.
IP doesnt ring true because she has told two different stories.

Can 1 defendant be found guilty and the other innocent or is it one down all down?

[David McKeown]

I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change

the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.

How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.

Unless of course you believe the expert evidence of the rebuttal witness who suggested that in their vast experience there's no way it could have been. These 4 may be guilty they may be not guilty or they may be innocent but it never ceases to amaze me how people can read tweets about hours of evidence and know what's fact and what's opinion and completely ignore or spin anything that doesn't suit that narrative. It's happened continually throughout the reporting of this trial from all sides. From the supposed PJ lie about not using his penis, to what the witness who entered the room saw, to this and everything in between. No wonder the criminal justice system is pilloried when people have minds made up without considering all the evidence and will then be the first to criticise jurors who have considered it all.

[David McKeown]

I think Syf has called this one correctly, for a change

the "mountain of medical evidence" he was telling us all about turned out to be incorrect.

How can medical evidence turn out to be "incorrect"?

A "full laceration tear" to the vagina which was still bleeding 14 hours later, along with bruising at the entrance to the vagina, these are not normal things. We know this was inflicted by Jackson and that it was not menstrual.

The overall narrative I've taken from the trial so far has been that the complainant's story is still holding up very well and that it appears highly likely that the four defendants engaged in a cover up.

Credibility of the protagonists is key. The complainant's credibility is still high. The credibility of the defendants, not so much.

I find it literally incredible that they met up the next lunchtime, shortly after they had been engaging in WhatsApp exchanges proclaiming themselves "top shaggers" and "legends", and not much more than an hour after Harrison had been informed that what happened was not consensual, and did not discuss the events of the previous night.

From the evidence so far PJ's story doesnt seem to ring true as the witness has told a different story to his
Olding seems true.
IP doesnt ring true because she has told two different stories.

Can 1 defendant be found guilty and the other innocent or is it one down all down?

1 or more could be convicted and the others acquitted. I think PJ and McIlroy are actually the closest linked so far from what I've read. It would be difficult to believe what the IP has said about one but not the other. It would be much easier to have different verdicts from PJ and Olding e.g. Guilty for PJ but Not guilty for Olding on the basis that he reasonably believed in all the circumstances that the victim was consenting.