The ulster rugby trial

[Syferus]

It never did outside of a legal context.

[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.

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

That's the whole point - it's as clear as mud. If it was otherwise, it wouldn't need a six week trial.

It's perfectly conceivable they with all the conflicting reports and statements they decided to return to McIlroy and ask for the clothes.

The PSNI may have lots of questions to answer. One thing they do not have to do is explain their processes and procedures to a bunch of dickheads on an internet forum complaining that nothing makes sense off the back of a few tweets.

[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

That's the whole point - it's as clear as mud. If it was otherwise, it wouldn't need a six week trial.

It's perfectly conceivable they with all the conflicting reports and statements they decided to return to McIlroy and ask for the clothes.

The PSNI may have lots of questions to answer. One thing they do not have to do is explain their processes and procedures to a bunch of d**kheads on an internet forum complaining that nothing makes sense off the back of a few tweets.

Another keyboard warrior getting his knickers in a twist

[Owen Brannigan]

Given all heard to date, am I alone in believing that the jury will be divided on the verdict and there won't be a second trial given the current media interest?

[David McKeown]

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.

It's a perfectly normal thing that happens in almost every trial.

Presumably if there's any legal arguments about no case to answer etc they will be made now then it's over to the defence. Interestingly if they are saying there's another two weeks to run that would suggest either all defendants intend to give evidence or less likely the defence for tactical reasons want to make it look like they are going to give evidence.

[Milltown Row2]

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.

It's a perfectly normal thing that happens in almost every trial.

Presumably if there's any legal arguments about no case to answer etc they will be made now then it's over to the defence. Interestingly if they are saying there's another two weeks to run that would suggest either all defendants intend to give evidence or less likely the defence for tactical reasons want to make it look like they are going to give evidence.

Sorry DMcK, I'm waiting on Syferus on this one!

It's going to take him a few days to get from Roscommon to Belfast in his horse and cart but I believe he'll be there to ask for the death penalty, where he himself will flick the switch!

[imtommygunn]

It is a high horse though and they must be quicker

[Frank_The_Tank]

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.

It's a perfectly normal thing that happens in almost every trial.

Presumably if there's any legal arguments about no case to answer etc they will be made now then it's over to the defence. Interestingly if they are saying there's another two weeks to run that would suggest either all defendants intend to give evidence or less likely the defence for tactical reasons want to make it look like they are going to give evidence.

I see the court is sitting tomorrow for legal arguments...Is that basically defence qcs saying to judge no case to answer and prosecution qc arguing to.judge there is David.

[David McKeown]

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.

It's a perfectly normal thing that happens in almost every trial.

Presumably if there's any legal arguments about no case to answer etc they will be made now then it's over to the defence. Interestingly if they are saying there's another two weeks to run that would suggest either all defendants intend to give evidence or less likely the defence for tactical reasons want to make it look like they are going to give evidence.

I see the court is sitting tomorrow for legal arguments...Is that basically defence qcs saying to judge no case to answer and prosecution qc arguing to.judge there is David.

Hard to know could be a fair few things including possibly no case to answer applications or Galbraith applications as they are known.

[Asal Mor]

Given all heard to date, am I alone in believing that the jury will be divided on the verdict and there won't be a second trial given the current media interest?

If this forum is anything to go by, the make-up of the jury and their personal beliefs around what is consent and what is rape will be key.

Call me old fashioned but the fact that another girl walked in and thought the oral sex looked consensual(I don't understand how you could orally rape someone without physical threat or force since she's the one performing the act on the man, it's not passive) and the fact that the alleged victim had this chance to stop things and didn't would have me going not guilty.

I also find it strange that she didn't mention this witness coming in during her police interview, only after the interview had been  completed. I imagine they go through these things in great detail during an interview and it seems a huge omission. There are inconsistencies on both sides and those who are forgiving the girl's omissions due to trauma are making no such allowances for the accused.

For all the pontificating about the texts and WhatsApp messages(and they do sound like arseholes) these actually support their version of events and don't hint at any fear they had done anything wrong.

Then again, these lads do sound obnoxious enough to have raped someone without realising it but I believe that anyone who can't see that  there's reasonable doubt is prejudiced and had their mind made up from the start.

[gallsman]

There are omissions for trauma and then the Jackson denying sex even took place. That's not an omission. If proven, it's a lie.

[Milltown Row2]

There are omissions for trauma and then the Jackson denying sex even took place. That's not an omission. If proven, it's a lie.

Did he think that cause he couldn't get it up that he didn't have sex? Dry humping and using the hand was his statement ?

[brokencrossbar1]

There are omissions for trauma and then the Jackson denying sex even took place. That's not an omission. If proven, it's a lie.

Did he think that cause he couldn't get it up that he didn't have sex? Dry humping and using the hand was his statement ?

I think this will be key. The fact that he claims he couldn't get it up and there doesn't seem to be much  medical evidence to back up sex, fluid etc. The internal vaginal would suggest that this was caused by something scrapping her, a nail or a ring for example, which would back up PJs assertion of using his hand. Although one witness says she saw them having sex she does not confirm that she saw penetration. She saw the motion of sex but cannot categorically confirm it. I think without clear medical evidence of sex having taken place then it will be very hard to prove beyond doubt that they had sex and therefore will be sufficient in my opinion to raise doubt. The WhatsApp messages are not good but they are circumstancial and can be played as lads being lads.

I think so far there are just too many inconsistencies and even though they have a lot of inconsistencies too I just don't know.

[seafoid]

There are omissions for trauma and then the Jackson denying sex even took place. That's not an omission. If proven, it's a lie.

Did he think that cause he couldn't get it up that he didn't have sex? Dry humping and using the hand was his statement ?

I think this will be key. The fact that he claims he couldn't get it up and there doesn't seem to be much  medical evidence to back up sex, fluid etc. The internal vaginal would suggest that this was caused by something scrapping her, a nail or a ring for example, which would back up PJs assertion of using his hand. Although one witness says she saw them having sex she does not confirm that she saw penetration. She saw the motion of sex but cannot categorically confirm it. I think without clear medical evidence of sex having taken place then it will be very hard to prove beyond doubt that they had sex and therefore will be sufficient in my opinion to raise doubt. The WhatsApp messages are not good but they are circumstancial and can be played as lads being lads.

I think so far there are just too many inconsistencies and even though they have a lot of inconsistencies too I just don't know.

She definitely didn't see him using his hand

[Milltown Row2]

There are omissions for trauma and then the Jackson denying sex even took place. That's not an omission. If proven, it's a lie.

Did he think that cause he couldn't get it up that he didn't have sex? Dry humping and using the hand was his statement ?

I think this will be key. The fact that he claims he couldn't get it up and there doesn't seem to be much  medical evidence to back up sex, fluid etc. The internal vaginal would suggest that this was caused by something scrapping her, a nail or a ring for example, which would back up PJs assertion of using his hand. Although one witness says she saw them having sex she does not confirm that she saw penetration. She saw the motion of sex but cannot categorically confirm it. I think without clear medical evidence of sex having taken place then it will be very hard to prove beyond doubt that they had sex and therefore will be sufficient in my opinion to raise doubt. The WhatsApp messages are not good but they are circumstancial and can be played as lads being lads.

I think so far there are just too many inconsistencies and even though they have a lot of inconsistencies too I just don't know.

She definitely didn't see him using his hand

When see looked in she didn't! But no semen from Jackson also to think about