The ulster rugby trial

[Minder]

Every single person who equates a not guilty verdict with the rape victim lying is telling the rest of us how utterly ignorant they are about rape and rape trials.

Does it make those people feel better to ignore the evidence of wrong-doing and blame the woman in that eventuality? What exactly would it be making them feel better about, I wonder?

Don't think anyone on here is equating a not guilty verdict with the complainant lying, that's a fair leap you have made there Syferus

[AQMP]

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.

Important to remember that, unlike the GAA Board, the jury does not contain the finest legal minds in the land.  They are members of the public - the man on the Clapham Omnibus and all that -, whose views as likely to be coloured (or not) by the contents of texts and WhatsApps as the next man or woman.

[Syferus]

Every single person who equates a not guilty verdict with the rape victim lying is telling the rest of us how utterly ignorant they are about rape and rape trials.

Does it make those people feel better to ignore the evidence of wrong-doing and blame the woman in that eventuality? What exactly would it be making them feel better about, I wonder?

Don't think anyone on here is equating a not guilty verdict with the complainant lying, that's a fair leap you have made there Syferus

You'd want to scroll up.

[magpie seanie]

And as for me "giving up" - I won't ever give up making my point. KS is right though.....I should have given up arguing with people who can't have a discussion without resorting to abuse and accusing me of things which are untrue. And not having the decency to retract or apologise.

[Avondhu star]

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.

The jury doesn't have to be beyond all doubt just beyond reasonable doubt. I know some of the legal eagles here cannot fathom the difference but it is the difference between a guilty verdict and a not guilty vetdict

Apologies - beyond all reasonable doubt.

Points still stand though

Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard. Not beyond "all" reasonable doubt

[Avondhu star]

Every single person who equates a not guilty verdict with the rape victim lying is telling the rest of us how utterly ignorant they are about rape and rape trials.

Does it make those people feel better to ignore the evidence of wrong-doing and blame the woman in that eventuality? What exactly would it be making them feel better about, I wonder?

Not guilty means that the prosecution has not met the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"
It doesn't mean the accused are innocent.
We are all around long enough to know that
The Scottish "not proven" is a good system

[nrico2006]

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.

The jury doesn't have to be beyond all doubt just beyond reasonable doubt. I know some of the legal eagles here cannot fathom the difference but it is the difference between a guilty verdict and a not guilty vetdict

But again it won't be 'legal eagles' who are to make the determination on the outcome of this case.  What is the threshold from doubt to reasonable doubt.

[nrico2006]

Every single person who equates a not guilty verdict with the rape victim lying is telling the rest of us how utterly ignorant they are about rape and rape trials.

Does it make those people feel better to ignore the evidence of wrong-doing and blame the woman in that eventuality? What exactly would it be making them feel better about, I wonder?

Not guilty means that the prosecution has not met the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"
It doesn't mean the accused are innocent.
We are all around long enough to know that
The Scottish "not proven" is a good system

What about the presumption of innocence though?

[Main Street]

If Harrison wasn't charged with anything but instead just called as a witness, could his police statements be read out to him in court?

[Avondhu star]

Every single person who equates a not guilty verdict with the rape victim lying is telling the rest of us how utterly ignorant they are about rape and rape trials.

Does it make those people feel better to ignore the evidence of wrong-doing and blame the woman in that eventuality? What exactly would it be making them feel better about, I wonder?

Not guilty means that the prosecution has not met the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"
It doesn't mean the accused are innocent.
We are all around long enough to know that
The Scottish "not proven" is a good system

What about the presumption of innocence though?

The presumption of innocence is a legal presumption which applies before and during a trial.
We all are aware of cases which have been lost due to a wrong search warrant. Evidence being ruled inadmissible because the accused didn't have access to a solicitor etc but in the world outside the court people will know the truth

[Syferus]

Every single person who equates a not guilty verdict with the rape victim lying is telling the rest of us how utterly ignorant they are about rape and rape trials.

Does it make those people feel better to ignore the evidence of wrong-doing and blame the woman in that eventuality? What exactly would it be making them feel better about, I wonder?

Not guilty means that the prosecution has not met the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"
It doesn't mean the accused are innocent.
We are all around long enough to know that
The Scottish "not proven" is a good system

What about the presumption of innocence though?

A legal mechanism that has no weight outside the justice system. No one in the outside world has any responsibility to give anyone the presumption of innocence. Some of the defence team here either are not aware of that fact or conveniently choose to ignore it.

[gallsman]

Every single person who equates a not guilty verdict with the rape victim lying is telling the rest of us how utterly ignorant they are about rape and rape trials.

Does it make those people feel better to ignore the evidence of wrong-doing and blame the woman in that eventuality? What exactly would it be making them feel better about, I wonder?

Not guilty means that the prosecution has not met the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"
It doesn't mean the accused are innocent.
We are all around long enough to know that
The Scottish "not proven" is a good system

What about the presumption of innocence though?

They are presumed to be innocent as they have not been proven to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. A "not guilty" verdict is not the same as declaring them innocent.

[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.

The woman is a fûcking hero if she helps convict two rapists.

She's a winner in my eyes either way for having the balls to bring this to trial irrespective of the verdict. Far too many women are cowed into silence after experiences like this.

After what experience?

She has said she was raped. The boys have said she wasnt.

Question (which I doubt you will answer).....if you slept with a woman and you believed all was fair, she said you raped her and you were found innocent - would you say she was a hero?

Any chance Syf?

[David McKeown]

Recklessness isn't an issue. The jury will be told they can only convict if they are satisfied to the requisite standard that the defendants did not reasonably believe the injured party was not consenting.

OK - though I'm struggling with your explanation (my fault, not yours).   
If I interpret your wording in my own words, the jury can only find guilty if they reasonably believe that Jackson and Olding didn't think she was not saying yes.  That makes no sense to me - sorry!  Is there another less legal way of explaining it?

Reckless is a legal issue and relates to this case. What you wrote Rois was pertinent.
An accused person could be judged reckless in being somewhat aware that the woman was not complaint, but carried on regardless. A legal standard of consent is that the accused genuinely believed he had consent from the woman. The jury might be asked that (about the accuseds'  belief being genuine)  from the Judge in this case.
We already know that merely having a belief that a woman was consenting is not a legal defence

That's wrong. It is a defence provided such a belief is not unreasonable. The legal concept of recklessness is not relevant in a rape case in Northern Ireland.

[Orior]

General question.

Irrespective of the verdict, is this the behaviour you would expect from professional provincial rugby players who are meant to be role models for young people?