The ulster rugby trial

[general_lee]

Their behaviour on whatsapp is part of the reason why I think they'll be found not guilty. Who in their right mind would get on like that the day after knowingly raped a girl.

[Syferus]

Jesus they come across as some shower of w**kers, "why are we all such legends ?"

I'd say every group whatsapp would be the same. Young fellas in their early 20s get on that way.

Far from every one but more common than Minder thinks. Being so callous after a rape, however, goes far beyond the usual locker room boys-will-be-boys guff. It's a total indictment of their attitudes towards women.

[Tony Baloney]

Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

I'm in exactly the same position.  The evidence from the lads' interviews has been less than convincing.

At this point I haven't a clue. . . there are holes in the lads testimonies and there are holes in the girls testimony so it's coming down to a he said she said for me.

In that case can you convict someone to go to jail? Can you let 2 possible rapists back on the street?

Also as has been stated more than a few times. We're getting 2-3 lines of testimony every 20 minutes so we're missing a lot of what's going on.

That's a bit of a stretch screen. I don't think these lads are a menace to society. Arseholes yes but I would suggest no different to other lads their age playing in high profile teams. Consent may not have been obvious but I'm sure there are no written contracts at 3am when all parties have been drinking. I find it VERY hard to believe that these 3 lads KNOWINGLY raped a girl and then sent the texts they did over the next few days about "roasting" etc. I fully believe that they believe they did nothing wrong. Now that's not to say she didn't feel threatened or under pressure to perform but there is nuance and shades of grey that knobs like Seanie and Syf are unwilling to see.

[seafoid]

Text messages exchange here https://twitter.com/ConorGallaghe_r

1.   11.28am June 30th, (two days after alleged rape and shortly before police arrest Jackson and Olding) text from McIlroy to a friend: "Pumped a bird with Jacko on Monday. Roasted her. Then another on Tuesday night."


What is the legal definition of "roasting" ?

[Syferus]

Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

I'm in exactly the same position.  The evidence from the lads' interviews has been less than convincing.

At this point I haven't a clue. . . there are holes in the lads testimonies and there are holes in the girls testimony so it's coming down to a he said she said for me.

In that case can you convict someone to go to jail? Can you let 2 possible rapists back on the street?

Also as has been stated more than a few times. We're getting 2-3 lines of testimony every 20 minutes so we're missing a lot of what's going on.

That's a bit of a stretch screen. I don't think these lads are a menace to society. Arseholes yes but I would suggest no different to other lads their age playing in high profile teams. Consent may not have been obvious but I'm sure there are no written contracts at 3am when all parties have been drinking. I find it VERY hard to believe that these 3 lads KNOWINGLY raped a girl and then sent the texts they did over the next few days about "roasting" etc. I fully believe that they believe they did nothing wrong. Now that's not to say she didn't feel threatened or under pressure to perform but there is nuance and shades of grey that knobs like Seanie and Syf are unwilling to see.

Rapists are a menace to society. The rest of your attempted mitigation feels very hollow once you accept that fact.

[Franko]

Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

I'm in exactly the same position.  The evidence from the lads' interviews has been less than convincing.

At this point I haven't a clue. . . there are holes in the lads testimonies and there are holes in the girls testimony so it's coming down to a he said she said for me.

In that case can you convict someone to go to jail? Can you let 2 possible rapists back on the street?

Also as has been stated more than a few times. We're getting 2-3 lines of testimony every 20 minutes so we're missing a lot of what's going on.

That's a bit of a stretch screen. I don't think these lads are a menace to society. Arseholes yes but I would suggest no different to other lads their age playing in high profile teams. Consent may not have been obvious but I'm sure there are no written contracts at 3am when all parties have been drinking. I find it VERY hard to believe that these 3 lads KNOWINGLY raped a girl and then sent the texts they did over the next few days about "roasting" etc. I fully believe that they believe they did nothing wrong. Now that's not to say she didn't feel threatened or under pressure to perform but there is nuance and shades of grey that knobs like Seanie and Syf are unwilling to see.

Rapists are a menace to society. The rest of your attempted mitigation feels very hollow once you accept that fact.

So are you.

Could you possibly disappear back into that box that you go into for a couple of days every time someone destroys another of your 'arguments'?  The adults would be much obliged.

[MoChara]

Reading the three witness testimonies am I picking it up wrong that a third man Blane McIlroy is claiming the girl gave him oral sex that night as well? but he is being prosecuted for exposing himself?


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/woman-tried-to-pull-several-members-of-jackson-and-olding-s-group-1.3407447?mode=amp&__twitter_impression=true

[WT4E]

The whatsapp message are cringe! Reminds me off a few videos I've seen of a lad taking the piss out of lads like that on facebook can't think of the name right now!

[magpie seanie]

Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

I'm in exactly the same position.  The evidence from the lads' interviews has been less than convincing.

At this point I haven't a clue. . . there are holes in the lads testimonies and there are holes in the girls testimony so it's coming down to a he said she said for me.

In that case can you convict someone to go to jail? Can you let 2 possible rapists back on the street?

Also as has been stated more than a few times. We're getting 2-3 lines of testimony every 20 minutes so we're missing a lot of what's going on.

That's a bit of a stretch screen. I don't think these lads are a menace to society. Arseholes yes but I would suggest no different to other lads their age playing in high profile teams. Consent may not have been obvious but I'm sure there are no written contracts at 3am when all parties have been drinking. I find it VERY hard to believe that these 3 lads KNOWINGLY raped a girl and then sent the texts they did over the next few days about "roasting" etc. I fully believe that they believe they did nothing wrong. Now that's not to say she didn't feel threatened or under pressure to perform but there is nuance and shades of grey that knobs like Seanie and Syf are unwilling to see.

Thanks buddy.

[magpie seanie]

Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

Excellent post. Be prepared to be called names now.

[magpie seanie]

Really can't see how Harrison can be convicted. I wouldn't want him organising a cover up story for me if I was charged with an offence.

So he shouldn't be charged because he did it badly? Is that what you're saying?

You cannot even understand a simple sentence. 

Maybe you should give up again [that didn't last too long the last time unfortunately] as you are becoming as hysterical as that other buffoon.

I'm perfectly able to understand sentences that make sense. The evidence above suggests you're not always capable of constructing them.

[Milltown Row2]

Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

Excellent post. Be prepared to be called names now.

At least AZ is going with the trial, he wasnt warming up the electric chair on the first day.. And still not conviced either way, as are mostly everyone on this thread bar you and the other numpty... Ive a view Tony has a view but I'd probably have a different view were i on the jury or sitting in court every day like Syferus. oh wait he's out milking cows

[NAG1]

Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

Excellent post. Be prepared to be called names now.

If you read back through that paragraph above it contains 4/5 points which are subjective and open to interpretation by anyone on the jury. To me that means the chances of a conviction in this case are becoming slimmer by the day.

[magpie seanie]

Is it only the Connacht posters and Sid who think the boys are guilty ?

On the initial evidence, including her testimony, I was inclined to believe that a situation she consented to got out of hand, and she immediately regretted it and got swept along by events.
As the evidence from witnesses etc came out, I was more inclined to think that was the case, particularly the eye witness testimony.
However, based on information supplied here about 'myths' regarding rape,  and more importantly by the just very unconvincing extracts from the police statements, I have come to start believing that this may in fact have been a "Bloke" situation, where the girl was collateral, and her consent was not the most important thing in the world to them. I think it's likely she was, in fact, raped.


The only thing I am uneasy about is the image the witness portrayed about Olding receiving oral, with his hands by his side, and no sign of any coercion.

If I was on the jury I'd certainly be leaning towards guilty, but am I beyond doubt? I don't envy them.

Excellent post. Be prepared to be called names now.

At least AZ is going with the trial, he wasnt warming up the electric chair on the first day.. And still not conviced either way, as are mostly everyone on this thread bar you and the other numpty... Ive a view Tony has a view but I'd probably have a different view were i on the jury or sitting in court every day like Syferus. oh wait he's out milking cows

I think you're lazily misrepresenting me. I'd ask you to post supporting evidence but there is none obviously. If you read my post from a few days ago it's very similar to what AZ said. The problem is I challenged you and one or two others on some things you posted. And you're letting yourself get overexcited by our friend from Roscommon, despite my advice.

[Taylor]

After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.