The ulster rugby trial

[Syferus]

Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.

That was my initial thoughts as well. I think Harrison refers to the complainant saying it was not consensual but I imagine the defence will try to paint the picture that it was regret after the fact as per Olding's statement. Its a complete mess and I have no idea what way this  should or will go.

I do think it actually strengthens the case for anonymity for all participants. If the defendants had not been named there would be limited interest in the case. In the scenario where the guys are found not guilty that's only fair. But I also think it would help the other party as there would be limited media interest in who the complainant was. As it stands now I think it is likely that her name would  get out which helps no-one. And if it a guilty verdict, I would imagine its easier to maintain that anonymity for her (should she decide) because there has not been such media attention. I know there is an argument that other victims/witnesses  are more likely to come forward if the accused is named etc but on balance i think it would be better to have all this out of the media.

When there is a systematic and societal bias against rape victims even coming forward I have little issue with names being made public once charged. If the police and the state didn't beleive a rape happened it wouldn't reach that point to begin with. It again goes without saying that a not guilty verdict does not equal innocence or a right to pick up their lives as if nothing occurred.

I am amused by the hand wringing in this thread over them being named despite it being common in many other types of cases. Do you realise the bias you're propigating here?

You see this is where you let yourself down and expose the fact that you actually couldn't give a flying fcuk about the alleged victim here.  Anyone with half a brain would know that this case wouldn't have been given a second glance by the media if the defendants hadn't been such high profile people.

That being the case, this girl would have been spared the torture of having read and listen to the most intimate discussions about her being conducted on the front page of every newspaper and being the headline story in every news bulletin.  This trial and the associated reporting also has to have planted a seed of doubt into the mind of anyone thinking of coming forward in similar circumstances.

Of course, the defendants would have also been spared being vilified by every halfwit attention seeker in the street before being convicted of any wrongdoing.  And we all know someone in that bracket.

The victim has anonymity so this is a very bizarre post in a lot of ways.

The suggestion that they should have had their identifies protected particularly because they were well known and it would create a fuss might be the most incredible angle of the lot, though.

[TabClear]

Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.

That was my initial thoughts as well. I think Harrison refers to the complainant saying it was not consensual but I imagine the defence will try to paint the picture that it was regret after the fact as per Olding's statement. Its a complete mess and I have no idea what way this  should or will go.

I do think it actually strengthens the case for anonymity for all participants. If the defendants had not been named there would be limited interest in the case. In the scenario where the guys are found not guilty that's only fair. But I also think it would help the other party as there would be limited media interest in who the complainant was. As it stands now I think it is likely that her name would  get out which helps no-one. And if it a guilty verdict, I would imagine its easier to maintain that anonymity for her (should she decide) because there has not been such media attention. I know there is an argument that other victims/witnesses  are more likely to come forward if the accused is named etc but on balance i think it would be better to have all this out of the media.

When there is a systematic and societal bias against rape victims even coming forward I have little issue with names being made public once charged. If the police and the state didn't beleive a rape happened it wouldn't reach that point to begin with. It again goes without saying that a not guilty verdict does not equal innocence or a right to pick up their lives as if nothing occurred.

I am amused by the hand wringing in this thread over them being named despite it being common in many other types of cases. Do you realise the bias you're propigating here?

Let me save you some time in future. Not one fcuk do I give about your views. You have repeatedly shown yourself to be a complete moron who seems to think that he knows better than anyone else regardless of subject. Fionntomach had you spot on earlier in this thread.

But, I will make one reply to you on this point.  I have absolutely no problem in rapists getting named and shamed. Your comment about it getting this far is pretty telling, you weren't the juror in the case AQMP referred to by any chance? He sounds like he is roughly on your wavelength. If that is the case why bother having jury trials at all? The police would be the first to admit they do not always get it right, but then you probably know better than them, the judges who devised the legal system et al.

Everyone knows that some rapists may get off, whether through reasonable doubt, lack of evidence, whatever. Nobody wants that but it will happen. There are also innocent people who have been falsely accused who have their lives ruined by their names being public record connected with rape. We cant do anything about the guilty who get off but I think it is the lesser of two evils to protect the identity of people falsely accused. And as I said above, I think the rationale for identifying accused before they are found guilty is flawed and doesn't necessarily help the complainant. Happy to debate that and if someone convinces me different thats fine. It will not be someone like you however, it will be someone who can string a coherent argument together.

Also good to see you find something in this thread amusing given your holier than thou attitude. There is no hand wringing on my part. What you dont seem to grasp, despite your superior intelligence  is that rape trials are different. There is a stigma attached to them, regardless of verdict. This is recognised in cases involving minors where people found guilty are kept anonymous, not to protect them but to help keep the victims anonymous. Everyone knows there are issues with rape victims coming forward and society should absolutely be doing everything to encourage that. That should involve debating how the system works and how it should be improved.

As I have said before, I have no idea what happened in this case. Much of this thread has been about the legal process, definitions and burden of proof, and has been pretty informative because most people accept they dont know what happened. People may put forward what they think is likely to have happened but I dont think anyone is insisting that they know what happened, with one obvious exception of course...  What is particularly obviously is that you add little to no insight.  Bottom line, If these guys are guilty throw the book at them. If they are innocent I hope they are found not guilty. That doesn't make me a rape apologist, biased or any better placed than anyone else to comment. However, Moronic crusaders like yourself who had clearly made up their mind before the jury was even sworn in are a waste of everyone's time

[Syferus]

So there's no stigma to murder trials? What?

[David McKeown]

Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I was guessing that's why he was charged but wasn't sure. It was either that or police believed he had given a deliberately false account of the actions of others in order to help their case. I hadn't seen either reported though.

From a technical point of view I would imagine police either saw the WhatsApp messages originally or they were still present on someone else's phone? Otherwise how could they prove messages were deleted?

I'm not sure, but Hedworth/Hepworth?? the prosecution QC told the jury that though they had the substance of the texts and WhatsApps they couldn't be sure of the chronology because they'd been deleted.

Can you [or indeed anyone] remember when this happened as I cannot recollect deleted texts being mentioned before.

Just to be accurate Newstalk reported yesterday "The court heard a series of texts between Rory Harrison and Blane McIlroy were deleted".  Didn't mention Jackson or Olding deleting texts.  Harrison is also charged with withholding information.

Oh right didn't see that at all, I've just read the report in the Irish News about the texting and there is no mention of texts being deleted in it. 

Why isn't McIlroy being charged with withholding information and perverting course of justice also then if a series of texts between them were deleted? Not expecting you to know the answer to that AQMP..... Syf probably will tho lol

Not sure on the charges KS.  Actually I wonder why McIlroy hasn't been charged with something more serious than exposure (or maybe that's a more serious charge that covers a range of activity).  He admitted engaging in sexual activity with the alleged victim (oral sex I think)

It would have been impossible for them to have proven rape or sexual assault against him because the IP denied it ever happened. Very difficult to prove a lack of consent in that regard. That's why he's not charged with rape or sexual assault. The prosecution obviously don't believe his admission in respect of the consensual sex either.

[magpie seanie]

I just dont know how some people on here can say these guys are guilty, we dont know and will never know as we werent there; They may be but....

Rape is terrible but so is lying - and im not saying she is lying, but she wouldnt be the first; Just imagine for one minute she is lying.....u cant deny she would have good cause to lie ..

Just a different perspective, i dont and will never know what happened so wont come to conclussions

Where do you start with this?

Wherever you wish MS.

Sweeper is just asking a question and offering a view.........assume he will be shot to pieces very soon by our resident legal experts, qualified psychologists etc

What's the question exactly?

He missed the ? at the end of the second sentence

OK - that being the case I'm a little at a loss. I've no idea why this poster would assume it undeniable she would have good cause to lie. It makes little sense to me so I'm clearly missing something.

As for

Rape is terrible but so is lying

all I will say is I know which one I'd prefer to be on the receiving end of.

[Taylor]

I just dont know how some people on here can say these guys are guilty, we dont know and will never know as we werent there; They may be but....

Rape is terrible but so is lying - and im not saying she is lying, but she wouldnt be the first; Just imagine for one minute she is lying.....u cant deny she would have good cause to lie ..

Just a different perspective, i dont and will never know what happened so wont come to conclussions

Where do you start with this?

Wherever you wish MS.

Sweeper is just asking a question and offering a view.........assume he will be shot to pieces very soon by our resident legal experts, qualified psychologists etc

What's the question exactly?

He missed the ? at the end of the second sentence

OK - that being the case I'm a little at a loss. I've no idea why this poster would assume it undeniable she would have good cause to lie. It makes little sense to me so I'm clearly missing something.

As for

Rape is terrible but so is lying

all I will say is I know which one I'd prefer to be on the receiving end of.

Someone lies about something that you didnt do - you are found guilty and have to spend 10-20 years of your life in jail.

Depends on the lie but in this case either outcome isnt pretty

[screenexile]

Prosecution closes its case!!!!

Can anybody in the know say if this is a good or a bad thing?

EDIT: Just read up on it not a big deal up to the defence now.

[gallsman]

I just dont know how some people on here can say these guys are guilty, we dont know and will never know as we werent there; They may be but....

Rape is terrible but so is lying - and im not saying she is lying, but she wouldnt be the first; Just imagine for one minute she is lying.....u cant deny she would have good cause to lie ..

Just a different perspective, i dont and will never know what happened so wont come to conclussions

Where do you start with this?

By ignoring it.

[AQMP]

Going by general reaction to the evidence re: texts and WhatsApps, the boys are sunk...with Harrison the most likely to be convicted!!

Well from what has been reported as being the texts and whatsapps what evidence have you seen that would make you think that Harrison is likely to be convicted?

Because the evidence is indisputable that he deleted loads of them thus hindering the police investigation.  The texts were deleted because he didn't want others to see them.  Do we believe that it happened because he re-set his phone (his reason)?  He's the only one charged with perverting the course of justice (I think).

I was guessing that's why he was charged but wasn't sure. It was either that or police believed he had given a deliberately false account of the actions of others in order to help their case. I hadn't seen either reported though.

From a technical point of view I would imagine police either saw the WhatsApp messages originally or they were still present on someone else's phone? Otherwise how could they prove messages were deleted?

I'm not sure, but Hedworth/Hepworth?? the prosecution QC told the jury that though they had the substance of the texts and WhatsApps they couldn't be sure of the chronology because they'd been deleted.

Can you [or indeed anyone] remember when this happened as I cannot recollect deleted texts being mentioned before.

Just to be accurate Newstalk reported yesterday "The court heard a series of texts between Rory Harrison and Blane McIlroy were deleted".  Didn't mention Jackson or Olding deleting texts.  Harrison is also charged with withholding information.

Oh right didn't see that at all, I've just read the report in the Irish News about the texting and there is no mention of texts being deleted in it. 

Why isn't McIlroy being charged with withholding information and perverting course of justice also then if a series of texts between them were deleted? Not expecting you to know the answer to that AQMP..... Syf probably will tho lol

Not sure on the charges KS.  Actually I wonder why McIlroy hasn't been charged with something more serious than exposure (or maybe that's a more serious charge that covers a range of activity).  He admitted engaging in sexual activity with the alleged victim (oral sex I think)

It would have been impossible for them to have proven rape or sexual assault against him because the IP denied it ever happened. Very difficult to prove a lack of consent in that regard. That's why he's not charged with rape or sexual assault. The prosecution obviously don't believe his admission in respect of the consensual sex either.

Thanks David.  Good to have your cool head keeping us right around here!

[gallsman]

The PSNI are having a nightmare with what's been out in court over the past few days. Sounds like they didn't take this serious at all - 17 days to collect Olding's clothes from the night? Obviously the fella would have washed them.

You've got it wrong.

It was McIlroy's clothes....McIlroy who the alleged victim said never touched her. Hence understandable the police were less interested in his clothing.

They didn't collect Olding's clothes because they felt there was no need to......he had admitted ejaculating in his statement.

Why not ask/get for McIlroys clothes immediately instead of 17 days later?

He literally explained that to you in the post you responded to.

[screenexile]

The officer was also asked about "inconsistencies" in the account the woman gave to a doctor at the Rowan sexual assault referral centre in Antrim. The jury has already heard that the then 19-year old told the doctor she was vaginally raped by two men - with no mention of forced oral sex.

O'Donoghoe asked the officer that after receiving the doctor's report, "you must have said to yourself 'What in God's name is this?'" The policewoman said she wouldn't have used those words.

She did, however, agree there were "significant inconsistencies" between what the woman told the doctor and what she told police.

Reporting by Ashleigh McDonald for M&M News Servic

None of that sounds good for the prosecution!

[tonto1888]

I just dont know how some people on here can say these guys are guilty, we dont know and will never know as we werent there; They may be but....

Rape is terrible but so is lying - and im not saying she is lying, but she wouldnt be the first; Just imagine for one minute she is lying.....u cant deny she would have good cause to lie ..

Just a different perspective, i dont and will never know what happened so wont come to conclussions

I don't think she is lying. I think she genuinely believes she was raped. Wether she was or not is another story but I don't think she has made the whole thing up

[TabClear]

So there's no stigma to murder trials? What?

I didnt say there was no stigma attached to murder trials, I said rape cases were different. Its usually pretty clear in a murder trial whether a crime has been committed. The decision the jury usually has to make is whether they have the right person. In a rape trial the jury has to decide if a crime actually took place i.e. did the complainant consent. In a private place and in the absence of physical evidence, that ultimately comes down to do you believe the complainant or the defendant. In my opinion there is a view of no smoke without fire in rape cases, your attitude being a pretty good example. This is because people think "why would they put themselves through an ordeal like what is going on in Belfast if there was nothing behind it". And I happen to think that's probably right, the vast majority of cases that make it to court are probably true. Where we clearly differ is that I do not think that accepting a couple of innocent people having their lives ruined even after being found not guilty is acceptable collateral damage when this could be prevented by looking at the anonymity provisions. 

Rape cases attract more media attention than most other types of prosecution and basically mud sticks, irrespective of verdict.

[Taylor]

The PSNI are having a nightmare with what's been out in court over the past few days. Sounds like they didn't take this serious at all - 17 days to collect Olding's clothes from the night? Obviously the fella would have washed them.

You've got it wrong.

It was McIlroy's clothes....McIlroy who the alleged victim said never touched her. Hence understandable the police were less interested in his clothing.

They didn't collect Olding's clothes because they felt there was no need to......he had admitted ejaculating in his statement.

Why not ask/get for McIlroys clothes immediately instead of 17 days later?

He literally explained that to you in the post you responded to.

Ok - so they were less interested in his clothing but then changed their mind 17 days later and then decided they had to get his clothing 

Clear as mud.

Edit..as I said the PSNI have a lot of answers to give in all this and seem to be grossly incompetent. The defence will no doubt show how incompetent they are now they are questioning them

[imtommygunn]

So there's no stigma to murder trials? What?

I didnt say there was no stigma attached to murder trials, I said rape cases were different. Its usually pretty clear in a murder trial whether a crime has been committed. The decision the jury usually has to make is whether they have the right person. In a rape trial the jury has to decide if a crime actually took place i.e. did the complainant consent. In a private place and in the absence of physical evidence, that ultimately comes down to do you believe the complainant or the defendant. In my opinion there is a view of no smoke without fire in rape cases, your attitude being a pretty good example. This is because people think "why would they put themselves through an ordeal like what is going on in Belfast if there was nothing behind it". And I happen to think that's probably right, the vast majority of cases that make it to court are probably true. Where we clearly differ is that I do not think that accepting a couple of innocent people having their lives ruined even after being found not guilty is acceptable collateral damage when this could be prevented by looking at the anonymity provisions. 

Rape cases attract more media attention than most other types of prosecution and basically mud sticks, irrespective of verdict.

I wouldn't say they necessarily attract more media attention. It wouldn't have mattered what this case was - it's the fact that it is "celebrities" involved causing all the media furore. If this was three or four boys from a lower league rugby team this thread wouldn't exist. It's not the alleged crime here it's who's involved.

There's stigma to anything. There may be less stigma to a murder case where someone gets acquitted and someone else found guilty but in a scenario like this you are not proven innocent you are unable to be proven guilty. It will also stick with this girl (as in perception because obviously the experience will) for a very long time (most likely life) if these boys are found guilty and probably moreso if they aren't proven to be guilty.

The term innocent till proven guilty doesn't exist any more really.