The ulster rugby trial

[Keyser soze]

Jackson insisted no vanilla sex but the witness saw him in position
He had no explanation for the tear in the vaginal wall. The claimant did . The whole hand.
Olding and McIlroy had the same story.
Olding was accused of exposure but he said he had oral sex with her. He must be lying.
The 3 insisted the claimant was fine leaving.
This was contradicted by the claimant and Harrison's texts
Harrison denied the meaning of the key texts. This was not credible.
The defence position is essentially that the claimant is a nymphomaniac.

You have missed your calling! instead of saving the world from economy disasters you should joing forces with Syferus and become the next legal team from the West!

IP took her own top off.
she was all over Jackson at the bar and his house
she said she never knew who he was
Left her mates and went back to a party with no friends
made no attempt to ask for help when the witness came in
witness seen her give oral with no hands on her
She was not sober, neither was anyone
No previous from the defendants

No of the above mean shit if she said no at any time, which would mean rape, the only no that was heard was when the other guy came in and she said, not him as well!

Too many factors there for 10 or more of the jury to say guilty i think, not that it makes them totaly innocent

None of those factors indicate consent.
The defence position is that she is a nymphomaniac.

I don't think the defence has mentioned that at all. Nor to my recollection even the most rabid posters ob here.

From your own experience can you list factors that do indicate consent.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
Mr Hedworth told the jury the defence case is that the alleged victim "was in control of the three defendants, using each of them in turn for her own sexual gratification at the age of 19."

Factors indicating consent would include verbal confirmation and not leaving the engagement in a state. The fact she took her top off does not mean she consented.

I ploughed all the way through that article, do not see any mention of nymphomania in it.  Also those tasteless texts by the defendants which paint them in a really bad light were introduced as evidence by the PROSECUTION!!

You quote Toby Hedworth for some reason, he is the prosecutor summing up his own case, of course he is going ro say that, its the entire basis of his case u but its hardly evidence to support what u said u complete dolt.

As regards consent are u postulating that consent is not given unless it is verbal? If so can I ask u what planet did u originally inhabit?

The nympho implication is in the quote I kindly provided.
No need for insults either.
They degrade your argument.

We are not having an argument. An argument is where 2 sides present facts and use reason and logic to debate these facts. This is not what is happening here though.

What is happening here is that you have made up a load of baseless nonsense ie that the defence case is based on portraying the complainant as a nymphomaniac, and I am showing u for the complete fool that you undoubtedly are.

How many men in the one session would you consider necessary to qualify for nympho status?
What relevance does this have? Who am I to judge someone else's sexual mores as ling as they are within legal parameters? Framing such a question in this way says a lot about how u view women?
The defence claim she had sex with 3 men in less than an hour. The defence claim f**k all of the sort. U (especially for u Gallsman) seem to have trouble understanding the most basic information.
The witness saw what was going on with Jackson and Olding and it was her first time seeing a threeesome live.
Or is that a standard Monday night in Belfast ?

[Frank_The_Tank]

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

No the jury can see her as can the judge and think so can the defendants via a screen (that is going from a tweet by Rosanna Cooney below:)

Rosanna Cooney
‏

@RosannaCooney
Mar 9
More
Around the witness box is a curtain rail, the same idea as one around a hospital bed, the royal blue curtain can be pulled across one or both sides of the box.

The complainant in this trial had the curtain pulled across the front side of the box so she was directly visible to the judge, jury and to the barristers.

She was not directly visible to anyone else however a live stream camera was focused on the complainant while she gave her evidence and a TV on a trolley (like the kind from primary school) was rolled in and positioned to face the defendants dock directly, the TV was also visible to the gallery.

In the middle of the of the court, directly in front of the judge are long tables for the barristers and solicitors.

All of the senior counsel in this trial wear black robes and off-white powdered wigs.

[AQMP]

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

[AQMP]

Feckin part timers!!

Kelly has finished his closing and that's it for today.  Back on Wednesday for rest of closing.  This could run for another fortnight

[tintin25]

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

This

My own thoughts are that stuff has went on that was consensual to a point (with Olding and Jackson to a degree), but someone (Jackson I feel) has crossed the line.

I certainly wouldn't believe the full account of the girl in question, but these lads are definitely hiding something.  McIlroy a pure con artist.

[Milltown Row2]

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

[AQMP]

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

That didn't stop Olding! 

Sorry, are you saying that the witness thought she saw Jackson having full sex with the alleged victim but he actually wasn't??

[Asal Mor]

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

+1. I also believe the prosecution only called her as they knew that the defence would if they didn't, making their case look even  shakier than it does now. Without Dara Florence the defendants wouldn't have a hope of being believed. They'd be done for.

[Syferus]

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

You're some joke.

[trailer]

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

This

My own thoughts are that stuff has went on that was consensual to a point (with Olding and Jackson to a degree), but someone (Jackson I feel) has crossed the line.

I certainly wouldn't believe the full account of the girl in question, but these lads are definitely hiding something.  McIlroy a pure con artist.

Even if this guy is found innocent he has lost all credibility as a human being. Comes across as an awful person. Does anyone know what he works(ed) at?

[Milltown Row2]

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

That didn't stop Olding! 

Sorry, are you saying that the witness thought she saw Jackson having full sex with the alleged victim but he actually wasn't??

I'm saying anything as i wasnt there, and neither were you, i'm giving another point to this, if this case was black and white it would be over by now and verdict given..

[AQMP]

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

That didn't stop Olding! 

Sorry, are you saying that the witness thought she saw Jackson having full sex with the alleged victim but he actually wasn't??

I'm saying anything as i wasnt there, and neither were you, i'm giving another point to this, if this case was black and white it would be over by now and verdict given..

But Dara Florence was, and she says she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the alleged victim, no mention of dry humping or fingers.  In fact the defence accepts that when he saw Florence, Jackson said "Do you want to join in?"  "Join in" to what...dry humping??

[Milltown Row2]

Regardless to all the stuff on here or anywhere.. this is a he said she said thing, her word against theirs, the best witness has to be the girl that walked into the actual act, if she was brought in by the prosecution then it was to discredit PJ and his claim of not having intercourse, by the same token there was no physical evidence of that (no semen, olny Oldings) and the tear in the vagina would probably more sugest he did in fact use his hand/fingers..

Too many things for me to get the right result i feel

Is the IP hidden from the jury?

I see your point MR2, but another way of looking at that is that it's the "best witness" (who said she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the complainant) vs. Jackson (who says he didn't have full intercourse with her).  Right enough, I accept she seems to have been a risky witness for the prosecution to bring forward but I think that's why they did.  Even Jackson's QC referred to her testimony as key - he means the bit about it not looking like a rape - but if you accept that bit then you must accept that Jackson is lying/mistaken/confused/hammered about his contact with the girl??

I reckon he couldnt get it up, very natural thing to happen when youre plastered and was dry humping her, no semen would sugest this, as your normally have some semem of sorts.. I do believe the girl who walked in and seen what she seen, and its her story i believe will actually get the guys off

That didn't stop Olding! 

Sorry, are you saying that the witness thought she saw Jackson having full sex with the alleged victim but he actually wasn't??

I'm saying anything as i wasnt there, and neither were you, i'm giving another point to this, if this case was black and white it would be over by now and verdict given..

But Dara Florence was, and she says she saw Jackson having full intercourse with the alleged victim, no mention of dry humping or fingers.  In fact the defence accepts that when he saw Florence, Jackson said "Do you want to join in?"  "Join in" to what...dry humping??

I just said that I believe her, do you also believe the girl when she said she didnt notice anyone coming in or heard the words do you want to join in? Do you also accept that there would be physical evidence of PJ having intercourse?

[Look-Up!]

Was very much on the fence with this trial before the lads testimony. It looked like a case of he said she said but their stories just don't add up. Also while I had been reading the newspaper reports I'll admit I hadn't been following religiously. But just read this today for the first time which is a transcript of texts between the girl and her mate the morning after. It's from the mirror and a month old. I also cannot find the transcript being carried anywhere else by another news site but it's very disturbing reading and ties in with a lot of the other evidence and texts and has certainly got me leaning towards believing the girl.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/rugby-rape-trial-paddy-jackson-12027425

This is an even more complete record of all the text messages that happened.

Both involving the complainant and the defendants.


https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032

Thanks for the link. Hadn't read that.

One thing I'd take from that is that the lads certainly appeared hammered and their memory fuzzy but that girl did not leave the house in a low-key manner with the lads blissfully unaware in their room. The phone call to Harrison in the taxi looks like a check up on her. Was it something "hilarious" or demeaning or something more sinister? Harrison comes across as a real snake in the grass too. There looks to have been a concerted effort to manage the situation, muddy the waters and delete texts and I can see why police have him up for obstructing an investigation. Maybe at the start they were more worried about bad publicity more than actually having a criminal case to answer but once the seriousness of the situation became clear the truth should have been the priority. Innocent parties generally don't fear the truth. The defense painting Jackson as a lad that butter wouldn't melt in his mouth was a bit much too. You cannot but get the feeling that they are still withholding something. Some of the girl's story doesn't fully match up either but to me she comes across as much more believable. But is there enough there for a conviction? Maybe not.

[seafoid]

Feckin part timers!!

Kelly has finished his closing and that's it for today.  Back on Wednesday for rest of closing.  This could run for another fortnight

So another 50 pages