The ulster rugby trial

[Hound]

Not related to the case!!!

I'm sure there are lots of people on here that have been out on a night out and all their versions of the night have been different, I know I've certainly been out and its been a mad one and various parties and then wondered WTF, checked in with a few friends (before mobiles lol) and ones have said this and others have said that and some have just not remembered ..

This does not excuse being a rapist or a top shagger oif course

If going by the general posts on here and the views I'd say they will get off because there is not enough hard evidence to convict

+1
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

You would hope the jury wasn't following social media after her appearance.

Also she appeared for the prosecution so if her evidence is credible then it's more likely to lead to conviction??  Did she not say that she saw Jackson having sex with the complainant, something he says didn't happen.  So if she's accurate...he's not?

But she also said that, while she didnt actually see the act of consent, it looked to her like it was consensual and gave her no cause for concern. But if you believe the complainant was terrorised with fear and afraid/unable to call for help, then that could still be non-consent

[gallsman]

Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.

[seafoid]

Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.

It is looking like he said /she said in which case it may come down to who is deemed to be telling the truth.
Jackson's schtick is that he is a nice young man and would never do that. Olding's is that despite 23 drinks he knew where he was.
Dara Florence is important because she was there and contradicts Jackson 

[AQMP]

Not related to the case!!!

I'm sure there are lots of people on here that have been out on a night out and all their versions of the night have been different, I know I've certainly been out and its been a mad one and various parties and then wondered WTF, checked in with a few friends (before mobiles lol) and ones have said this and others have said that and some have just not remembered ..

This does not excuse being a rapist or a top shagger oif course

If going by the general posts on here and the views I'd say they will get off because there is not enough hard evidence to convict

+1
Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

You would hope the jury wasn't following social media after her appearance.

Also she appeared for the prosecution so if her evidence is credible then it's more likely to lead to conviction??  Did she not say that she saw Jackson having sex with the complainant, something he says didn't happen.  So if she's accurate...he's not?

But she also said that, while she didnt actually see the act of consent, it looked to her like it was consensual and gave her no cause for concern. But if you believe the complainant was terrorised with fear and afraid/unable to call for help, then that could still be non-consent

Yep, I think that's the road the prosecution will be going down when they sum up.  The defence doctor (expert in sexual assault) did say that the "overwhelming evidence" was that women didn't resist.  So they're likely to say that what Ms Florence saw was a woman not resisting non-consensual sex just like the vast majority of women who are assaulted.

[AQMP]

Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.

It is looking like he said /she said in which case it may come down to who is deemed to be telling the truth.
Jackson's schtick is that he is a nice young man and would never do that. Olding's is that despite 23 drinks he knew where he was.
Dara Florence is important because she was there and contradicts Jackson

So does Olding in parts of his evidence

[gallsman]

And McIlroy...

[magpie seanie]

I think putting them on the stand is an indication that the defence are worried. And it certainly on the face of it doesn't appear to be working. Maybe the Ireland Rugby Captain on Monday after winning the 6 nations championship might help sway things.

[Asal Mor]

Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.

I'd say it's more likely than not that Jackson had sex with her which would mean he lied about that, but I also feel the girl probably went along with things given Florence's evidence that she was giving apparently consensual oral to Olding and the fact that she took her own top off. Those are just my opinions and although it sounds like the 4 lads are telling a few lies and have a dodgy recollection(as MR2 said it would be surprising if there weren't lots of contradictions in the various accounts given the amount of drink involved), I still feel there's too much doubt about the girl's story for a jury to convict due to:
- Florence thinking it looked consensual.
- the girl not mentioning Florence's appearance in her police interview. Even allowing for trauma this is a strange omission. I imagine a police interview for an incident like this is a very thorough process.
- inconsistencies between what she told the doctors and the cops.
- her admission that her recollection of events was hazy.
- taking her own top off. She said she was ordered to but can't recall who ordered her to do it.

[Asal Mor]

Or to put it another way, the girl might be more believable than the lads at this stage, but she's not believable enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Milltown Row2]

For Jackson there is no DNA of him having sex with here , no semen doesnt mean he didnt but most people have some sort of fluid coming out their dick when dry humping..

The witness sees him thrusting but I doubt very much see seen him with his dick inside her, as she would have had to bend down to see..

Taking the stand was a risk, it might not pay off and now really its down to the jury to.. if a poll went up here I'm guessing they would be getting off

[seafoid]

Hard to give credibility to anyone's testimony other than  Dara Florence and in those circumstances the jury has to acquit.

On what basis? She swears she saw Jackson having sex with her, he says he didn't. If her evidence is credible, then he's lying.

I'd say it's more likely than not that Jackson had sex with her which would mean he lied about that, but I also feel the girl probably went along with things given Florence's evidence that she was giving apparently consensual oral to Olding and the fact that she took her own top off. Those are just my opinions and although it sounds like the 4 lads are telling a few lies and have a dodgy recollection(as MR2 said it would be surprising if there weren't lots of contradictions in the various accounts given the amount of drink involved), I still feel there's too much doubt about the girl's story for a jury to convict due to:
- Florence thinking it looked consensual.
- the girl not mentioning Florence's appearance in her police interview. Even allowing for trauma this is a strange omission. I imagine a police interview for an incident like this is a very thorough process.
- inconsistencies between what she told the doctors and the cops.
- her admission that her recollection of events was hazy.
- taking her own top off. She said she was ordered to but can't recall who ordered her to do it.

Re hazy recollections, everyone was drunk.

The police interview is claimant led according to someone in the PSNI. It is not structured to cover everything given the trauma associated with rape.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/feb/03/uma-thurman-harvey-weinstein-new-york-times-quentin-tarantino

The attempted assault in London, she told the Times, came after a meeting with Weinstein in a hotel room in Paris, during which he wore a bathrobe.

"I didn't feel threatened," she said. "I thought he was being super idiosyncratic, like this was your kooky, eccentric uncle."

Thurman said the producer instructed her to follow him down a hallway.

"I followed him through a door and it was a steam room," she said. "And I was standing there in my full black leather outfit – boots, pants, jacket. And it was so hot and I said, 'This is ridiculous, what are you doing?' And he was getting very flustered and mad and he jumped up and ran out."


The actor returned to the Savoy to confront Weinstein, she said, taking her friend with her. She asked Weinstein to meet her in the bar. However, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes, his assistants convinced her to return upstairs alone.

Thurman said she warned Weinstein: "If you do what you did to me to other people you will lose your career, your reputation and your family, I promise you."

A spokesman for the director told the Times Thurman "very well could have said this".

According to the Times, Thurman's "memory of the incident abruptly stops there".

Thurman's friend, Ilona Herman, told the Times that when Thurman returned from meeting Weinstein, "she was very disheveled and so upset and had this blank look. Her eyes were crazy and she was totally out of control. I shoveled her into the taxi and we went home to my house. She was really shaking."

Herman told the Times that when Thurman was able to talk again, she said Weinstein had threatened to derail her career. Weinstein apparently brushed off the incident, though, and his assistants started calling again to talk about projects.

[seafoid]

Or to put it another way, the girl might be more believable than the lads at this stage, but she's not believable enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution will probably focus on the features of rape in the final speeches. The lads are saying everything was grand.

[Asal Mor]

Fair points seafoid but it seems unfair to put inconsistencies and strange behaviour/explanations on one side down to trauma and on the other side down to lies which I think is what the jury will have to do in order to convict.

[magpie seanie]

The police interview is claimant led according to someone in the PSNI. It is not structured to cover everything given the trauma associated with rape.

It's little details like this that are being ignored or people are unaware of that are crucial I think.

Another thing that strikes me as weird was "asking" her to take her top off. Doesn't ring true at all. I'm sure I'm wrong....

[seafoid]

Fair points seafoid but it seems unfair to put inconsistencies and strange behaviour/explanations on one side down to trauma and on the other side down to lies which I think is what the jury will have to do in order to convict.

Asal, I would say the prosecution will focus on credibility and drink taken.
23 drinks is shocking.